(HC)Linville v. Matteson

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARTIN LINVILLE, No. 2:22-cv-0057 DJC AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 GISELLE MATTESON, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On November 19, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 21 recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice 22 to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed 23 within twenty-one days. ECF No. 26. Neither party filed objections to the findings and 24 recommendations. 25 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 26 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge’s conclusions of law 27 are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 28 (9th Cir. 1983). The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and 1 | recommendations to be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s 2 | analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 26) are adopted; 5 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied; 6 3. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 7 | U.S.C. § 2253 as Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 8 | constitutional right, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); and 9 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 10 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 | Dated: _January 17, 2025 “Dane A Hon. Daniel alabretta 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28