(HC) Otto v. Tampkins ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUSSELL W. OTTO, No. 2:19-cv-00425 MCE GGH P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 CYNTHIA TAMPKINS, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding in pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 7, 2019, petitioner filed a motion to stay pursuant to 19 Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). ECF No. 18. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On November 4, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 22 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 23 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 20. Neither 24 party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 26 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 27 ORDERED that: 28 /// 1 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 4, 2019, ECF No. 20, are 2 | ADOPTED in full; 3 2. Petitioner’s motion to stay and hold the petition in abeyance, ECF No. 18, is DENIED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 | Dated: February 4, 2020 6 □ 7 MORRISON C. he UNITED STATES DISTRI 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28