(PC) Harvey v. Barbour ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH HARVEY, No. 2:12-cv-02029 KJM DB P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 J. BARBOUR, 15 Defendant. 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 March 16, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 21 63), which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections 22 to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Thirty days have passed 23 and neither party has 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 March 16, 2021 (ECF No. 63) are adopted; 5 2. Respondent’s motion for summary judgement (ECF No. 53) is granted; and 6 3. The clerk of court is directed to close this case. 7 || DATED: September 22, 2021. 8 9 ( ti / ¢ q_/ 10 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28