(HC) Sahm v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STANLEY CARL SAHM, No. 2:20-cv-01941 KJM DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND 15 REHABILITATION, 16 Respondent. 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 19 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 20 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On April 23, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 22 served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and 23 recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. (ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff has not filed 24 objections to 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 April 23, 2021 (ECF No. 5), are adopted in 5 full; 6 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice; 7 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 8 | § 2253 for the reasons stated in the findings and recommendations; and 9 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 10 | DATED: August 20, 2021. 1] 12 ee B CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28