(HC) Sho v. S.F. Field Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 MONSURU WOLE SHO, No. 1:21-cv-01812-TLN-AC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER OFFICER DIRECTOR, SAN STATES IMMIGRATION AND 16 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., 17 Respondents. 18 19 Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 20 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 22 On February 16, 2022, a magistrate judge previously assigned to this action issued 23 findings and recommendations herein which were served on Petitioner and which contained 24 notice to Petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed 25 within twenty-one days. (ECF No. 22.) Petitioner has not filed objections to the findings and 26 recommendations. 27 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 28 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 1 | See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The Court has 2 | reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 3 | by the previously assigned magistrate judge’s analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued February 16, 2022 (ECF No. 22) are 6 | ADOPTED in full; and 7 2. Petitioner’s construed Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 9) is 8 | DISMISSED as duplicative of the relief requested in his Petition. 9 | DATED: September 23, 2022 rr’ /) 10 “ \/ fh bw 11 — ZW _ Troy L. Nunley } 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28