(HC) Brown v. Montgomery ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CHESTER BROWN, No. 2:19-cv-000291-TLN-CKD 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 WARREN L. MONTGOMERY, 13 Respondent. 14 15 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 16 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 17 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On September 26, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 19 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 20 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Neither party has 21 filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 22 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 23 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 24 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 25 the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 the magistrate judge’s analysis. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 26, 2022, are ADOPTED IN 1 FULL. 2 2. The petition is DENIED. 3 3. The Clerk of Court shall close this action. 4 4. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. 6 | DATED: December 15, 2022 7 / “ eck ° Troy L. Nuhlep ] 10 United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28