(HC)Hendrix v. Montgomery

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 STEVEN HENDRIX, No. 2:20-cv-00531-TLN-CKD 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 29, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 33.) Neither 23 party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 27 the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 28 the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed June 29, 2022 CECF No. 33) are ADOPTED 3 | in full; 4 2. Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 26) is 5 | DENIED; and 6 3. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 7 | 2253. 8 | DATED: August 18, 2022 9 () f 10 “ ! J Vu 11 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28