(HC)Guzman v. Thompson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAUL GUZMAN, No. 2:21-cv-01800-TLN-KJN 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 PAUL THOMPSON, et al., 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 11, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 11.) Neither 23 party filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 27 the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 28 the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 11, 2022, (ECF No. 11), are 3 | adopted in full. 4 2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED on the grounds that 5 | Petitioner’s claims are not ripe. 6 3. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 7 § 2253. 8 | DATED: April 5, 2022 9 /) 10 “ □ □□ Lu Troy L. Nuhlep ] 12 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28