(HC) Henson v. Matterson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCUS HENSON, JR., No. 2:22-cv-0712 KJM CKD P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 GISELLE MATTERSON, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has 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 September 7, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on the parties and which contained notice to that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections have been filed. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 25 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 7, 2022, are adopted in full; 3 2. Petitioner’s motion for a stay (ECF No. 15) is granted; 4 3. This matter is stayed; and 5 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to administratively close this case. 6 | DATED: December 14, 2022. 7 8 ( ti / ¢ q_/ 9 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28