(HC) Mendoza v. Sullivan ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HERIBERTO MENDOZA, No. No. 2:19-cv-02183 KJM GGH P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 SULLIVAN, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of 18 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On December 30, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 12. Petitioner has 23 not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 1 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED 2 that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed December 30, 2019, are adopted in full; and 4 2. This action is dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to 5 comply with the court’s order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110. 6 DATED: August 8, 2020. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28