(HC) Watkins v. Hixson

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RICHARD HOWARD WATKINS, No. 2:22-cv-1158 WBS CKD P 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 KEVIN HIXSON, 13 Respondent. 14 15 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 16 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 17 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On June 20, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 19 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 20 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Neither party has filed 21 objections to the findings and recommendations. 22 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 23 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 24 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having 25 reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 26 and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 20, 2025, are adopted in full; 3 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 9) is denied; 4 3. The Clerk of Court shall close this action; and 5 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 6 | 2253. . 7 | Dated: July 18, 2025 he A, han bee WILLIAM B. SHUBB 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28