(HC) Arismendez v. Baughman ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROLANDO ARISMENDEZ, No. 2: 17-cv-00792-MCE-CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 DAVID BAUGHMAN, 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 March 04, 2021, 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. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 04, 2021, are ADOPTED in full; 3 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED; 4 3. Petitioner’s first amended habeas corpus petition is DISMISSED with prejudice as 5 | barred by the statute of limitations; 6 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 7 | 2253; and 8 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: June 9, 2021 ly & 12 Wty (LEXA . 3 NOR UNITED STARS DIS exe} JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28