(HC) Purtill v. Covello ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHRIS PURTILL, No. 2:22-cv-0199 KJM DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 PATRICK COVELLO, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 November 3, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Neither party filed objections 23 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 November 3, 2022 are adopted in full; 5 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) is granted on the grounds that the 6 || petition is untimely; 7 3. Petitioner’s motion to stay (ECF No. 16) and request for DNA testing (ECF No. 18) 8 || are denied as moot; 9 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 10 | § 2253; and 11 5. This case is closed. 12 | DATED: February 21, 2023. 13 14 ee 15 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28