(HC) James v. State of CA Attorney General ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RONALD EUGENE JAMES, No. 2:23-cv-00037 KJM AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of 18 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 17, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 3. Petitioner 23 has not 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: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 17, 2023 (ECF No. 3), are adopted in 5 | full; 6 2. Petitioner’s application for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice; 7 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 8 || § 2253; and 9 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 10 | DATED: March 6, 2023. 12 3 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28