(HC) Prince v. Ramsey ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID SWANK PRINCE, No. 2:20-cv-01962-TLN-KJN 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 MICHAEL RAMSEY, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 November 19, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on Petitioner and which contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 33.) 23 Petitioner did not file objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 Although it appears from the file that Petitioner’s copy of the findings and 25 recommendations was returned, Petitioner was properly served. It is the petitioner’s 26 responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local 27 Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 28 /// 1 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 2 | F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 3 | (e, 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and 4 || recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 19, 2021, (ECF No. 33) are 7 | adopted in full; and 8 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Local Rule 9 | 183¢b). 10 | DATED: January 24, 2022 ry /) 4.0. hele 13 a NZ Troy L. Nunley> } 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28