(HC) Walker v. Cates ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOUGLAS WALKER, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-01412-JLT-BAK (SAB) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. ) ) (Doc. 15) 14 BRIAN CATES, Warden, ) 15 Respondent. ) ) 16 ) 17 Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in this Court on September 23, 2021. (Doc. 18 1.) On October 18, 2021, Petitioner filed a motion for a stay and abeyance of the proceedings pursuant 19 to Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269 (2005). (Doc. 7.) The assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 20 recommendations to deny petitioner’s motion for a stay and to dismiss grounds one, three, and four 21 from the petition. (Doc. 15.) These findings and recommendations notified the parties that any 22 objections were to be filed within 21 days from the date of service of that order. Petitioner filed 23 objections on February 25, 2022. (Doc. 16.) 24 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo review of the case. 25 Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s findings and 26 recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Petitioner generically asserts that 27 “jurists of reason could find debatable the magistrate judge’s findings” but fails to challenge any 28 aspect of the findings and recommendations with specificity. Thus, the court orders as follows: 1 1. The findings and recommendations, filed February 11, 2022 (Doc. 15), are ADOPTEL 2 IN FULL; 3 2. Petitioner’s motion to stay (Doc. 7) is DENIED; and 4 3. Grounds one, three, and four are DISMISSED. 5 6 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ May 22, 2022 ( Li pA L. warm 8 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28