(HC) Hubbard v. Glenn County Superior Court ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DALE WESLEY HUBBARD, Jr., No. 2:20-cv-01232 KJM GGH P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 GLENN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 19 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 7, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 5. Petitioner has not 23 filed objections to the findings and recommendations.1 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 1 While petitioner’s service copy of the findings and recommendations was returned as 28 undeliverable, it is petitioner’s obligation to keep the court apprised of any change in address. 1 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 2 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 3 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 7, 2020, are adopted in full; 6 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is summarily dismissed; and 7 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 8 § 2253. 9 DATED: October 15, 2020. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28