(HC) Roessler v. Covello ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL LEE ROESSLER, No. 2:19-cv-02422-KJM-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 PATRICK COVELLO, 15 Respondent. 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. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 19 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 10, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 25 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by 26 the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 20, 2022, are adopted in full; 3 2. Petitioner’s motion for a stay, ECF No. 45, is denied as unnecessary; 4 3. The current petition, ECF No. 1, is dismissed without prejudice to refiling once 5 || petitioner’s conviction is finalized in state court; 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 Court is directed to close the case. 9 || DATED: February 4, 2022. 10 il ( tied ¢ q_/ CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28