(HC) Harlow v. Ndoh ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEVEN FRANK HARLOW, No. 2:17-cv-00922 MCE DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On April 13, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 22 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 23 and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. (ECF No. 14.) Neither party has filed 24 objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 27 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 28 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 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 filed April 13, 2021 (ECF No. 14) are ADOPTED; 5 2. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is DENIED; 6 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case; and 7 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 8 2253 for the reasons set forth in the findings and recommendations. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 | Dated: August 25, 2021 : Mater LEK hu rfl ASX, Xe: SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28