(HC) Smith v. California Department of Correction and Rehabilitation ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TORIANO GERMAINE SMITH, No. 2:19-cv-2282-KJM-EFB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION AND 15 REHABILITATION, 16 Respondent. 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed an application for 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 March 25, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendation, 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 fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to 24 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 March 25, 2020, are adopted in full; 5 2. This action is dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2254 6 Cases; 7 3. The Clerk is directed to close the case; and 8 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 9 DATED: June 3, 2020. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28