(HC) Strawther v. Baughman

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CHEMA KEOMIE STRAWTHER, No. 2:18-cv-02755-DJC-CKD 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 D. BAUGHMAN, 13 Respondent. 14 15 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ 16 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United 17 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On December 8, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 19 recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice 20 to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed 21 within twenty-one days. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and 22 recommendations. 23 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 24 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law 25 are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 26 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and 27 recommendations to be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s 28 analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 8, 2022, are adopted in 3 | full; 4 2. The petition is denied; 5 3. The Clerk of Court shall close this action; and 6 4. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 7 | ULS.C. § 2253. 8 9 10 IT |S SO ORDERED. 11 | Dated: _ April 21, 2023 Bek | Cbabeatin.. Hon. Daniel labretta 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28