(HC) Black v. Thompson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RANDY L. BLACK, No. 2:21-cv-2228 KJM KJN P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN PAUL THOMPSON, 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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 March 4, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner did not file objections to 23 the 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 March 04, 2022, are adopted in full; 5 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice; and 6 3. The clerk of court is directed to close this case. 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