(HC) Wolfington v. Pfeiffer ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BILLY THOMAS WOLFINGTON, No. 2:20-cv-0653 KJM AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 JARED D. LORANZO, Warden, 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 July 17, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 20. Neither party has 23 filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 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 July 17, 2020, are adopted in full; 5 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 16, is GRANTED; 6 3. This action is dismissed without prejudice; and 7 4. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel, ECF No. 19, is denied without 8 prejudice as moot; and 9 5. This court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 10 DATED: September 28, 2020. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28