(HC) Proby v. Ross ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 WILLIAM DEON PROBY, No. 2:21-cv-0852 KJM DB P 13 Petitioner, 14 v. ORDER 15 TAMMY ROSS, 16 Respondent. 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 19 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided 20 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On September 27, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 22 served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings 23 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. (ECF No. 7.) Petitioner 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, 602 26 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 27 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 28 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 supported by 2 || the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 28, 2021, are adopted in full; 5 2. The petition is dismissed without leave to amend; and 6 3. The clerk of court is directed to close this case. 7 | DATED: January 11, 2022. 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