(HC) Thompson v. Spearman ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KANE MICHAEL THOMPSON, No. 2:20-cv-0726 KJM DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 M.E. SPEARMAN, 15 Respondents. 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. (ECF No. 1). The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 2, 2020, the magistrate judge issued 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 thirty days. (ECF No. 8). 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 ///// 1 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations issued October 2, 2020 (ECF No. 8) are 5 ADOPTED in full; 6 2. This action is DISMISSED as duplicative of Thompson v. Spearman, 7 No. 2:19-cv-2328 KJM DB P, and 8 3. The court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 9 § 2253. 10 DATED: January 20, 2021. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28