(HC) Williamson v. Adams ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 VANESSA KAY WILLIAMSON, No. 2:21-cv-1210 KJM CKD P 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 DARRYL ADAMS, 13 Respondent. 14 15 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 16 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 17 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On February 14, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 19 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 20 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed 21 objections to the findings and recommendations. 22 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 23 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 24 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 25 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 26 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 27 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 28 ///// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 14, 2022, are adopted in full; 3 2. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice; 4 3. The Clerk of Court shall close this action; and 5 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 6 || § 2253. 7 || DATED: May 23, 2022. 8 9 ( ti / ¢ q_/ 10 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28