(HC) Hunter-Harrison v. Atchley ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GRANVAL G. HUNTER-HARRISON, No. 2:20-cv-00592-WBS-CKD 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 M. ATCHLEY, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On August 8, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The court has 27 reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and 28 by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 8, 2023 are adopted. 3 2. Respondent’s partial motion to dismiss (ECF No. 35) is granted. 4 3. Claims | and 3-6 of the first amended federal habeas corpus petition (ECF No. 33) are 5 dismissed with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations. 6 4. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for consideration of claim two on 7 | the merits. 8 | Dated: September 25, 2023 aod Y. é..b6~-— WILLIAM B. SHUBB ? UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 12/hunt0592.801.he 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28