(HC) Vasquez v. Spearman ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISAAC VASQUEZ, No. 2:18-cv-00073-TLN-KJN 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 M. ELIOT SPEARMAN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Isaac Vasquez (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an 18 application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to 19 a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 24, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 21 recommending that Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied. (ECF No. 15.) The 22 findings and recommendations contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 23 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (Id.) Neither party filed objections 24 to the findings and recommendations. 25 On October 7, 2020, the Court adopted the April 24, 2020 findings and recommendations 26 and judgment was entered. (ECF Nos. 18–19.) 27 /// 28 /// 1 On November 4, 2020, Petitioner filed a request to file objections to the findings and 2 || recommendations. (ECF No. 20.) On November 17, 2020, the Court issued an Order construing 3 | Petitioner’s November 4, 2020 filing as a request for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal 4 | Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). (ECF No. 21.) The Court granted Petitioner’s request for relief 5 | from judgment, vacated the October 7, 2020 Order and Judgment, and granted Petitioner thirty 6 | days to file objections to the April 24, 2020 findings and recommendations. (/d.) 7 On December 17, 2020, the magistrate judge granted Petitioner a sixty-day extension of 8 || time to file objections. (ECF No. 23.) On January 29, 2021, the magistrate judge granted 9 | Petitioner a second sixty-day extension of time to file objections. (ECF No. 25.) Sixty days have 10 || passed from January 29, 2021, and Petitioner has not filed objections. Accordingly, the Court 11 || herein addresses the April 24, 2020 findings and recommendations. 12 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 13 | F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 14 || See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 15 The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 16 || supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 17 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 18 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 24, 2020 (ECF No. 15), are ADOPTED 19 | INFULL; 20 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED; and 21 3. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 22 | 2253. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. /) 24 DATED: April 30, 2021 “ \ | 7) jf Lr 29 a J 6 Troy L. Nunley” . } United States District Judge 27 28