(HC) Gibson v. State of California ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRITTANY RENEE GIBSON, No. 2:22-cv-0844-KJM-KJN P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 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 April 21, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on petitioner and contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner did not file objections to the 23 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 April 21, 2023 are adopted in full; 5 2. Petitioner’s motion to stay (ECF No. 13) is granted, and this action is administratively 6 || stayed while petitioner exhausts her unexhausted claims; and 7 3. Within thirty days of this order, petitioner shall file a status report addressing the status 8 | of the exhaustion of her unexhausted claims. 9 | DATED: July 21, 2023. 10 1 eee CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28