(HC) Rubio v. Raythel Fisher ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCELO RUBIO, JR., No. 2:16-cv-01277-WBS-CKD 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 RAYTHEL FISHER, 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 September 9, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed 23 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 27 reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 28 and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. MwA 2 LUV MEET EVRY NE MUO eI ere POY ee 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 9, 2020, are adopted in full. 3 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. 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: September 25, 2020 dh ble ak 4) 4 Z é 8 WILLIAM B. SHUBB 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 12/rubil277.801.he.d 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28