(HC) Harris v. Sacramento County Superior Court ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODRICK HARRIS, No. 2:19-cv-02413-TLN-KJN 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Rodrick Harris (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application 19 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 13, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 22 which were served on Petitioner and which contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to 23 the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 7.) 24 Petitioner has not filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 25 Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. 26 United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 27 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 28 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 1 Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings 2 and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 13, 2020 (ECF No. 7), are adopted in 4 full; 5 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for failure to 6 exhaust state remedies. 7 3. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 8 § 2253. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 DATED: April 7, 2020 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28