(HC) Munoz v. Unknown ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 RENÉ MUÑOZ, No. 2:21-cv-01171 KJM JDP P 13 Petitioner, 14 v. ORDER 15 UNKNOWN, 16 Respondent. 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an extension of time to file a writ 19 of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On October 21, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 22 were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the 23 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 5. Petitioner has 24 not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 26 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 27 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 28 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 supported by 2 || the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 21, 2021, are adopted in full; 5 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice to the filing of a habeas corpus petition; and 6 3. The clerk of court is directed to close this case. 7 || Dated: January 11, 2022. 8 9 ( ti / ¢ q_/ 10 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28