(HC) Inprasit v. Matteson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARTHUR INPRASIT aka ARTHUR NOP No. 2:20-cv-00643 WBS KJN P LEW, 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER v. 14 GISELLE MATTESON, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 20 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On February 15, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 22 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 23 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Neither party has 24 filed 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 Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having 28 reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 1 | and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 15, 2022, are adopted in full; 4 2. The petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied; 5 3. The Clerk of Court shall close this action; and 6 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 7 | 2253, for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. 8 | Dated: March 22, 2022 44 td . 4h. 9 WILLIAMB.SHUBB 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 /inpr0643.801 -he 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28