(HC) Herrera v. Cisneros ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAIME HERRERA, No. 1:22-cv-0703 JLT SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND 13 v. DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR A STAY 14 TERESA CISNEROS, Warden, (Docs. 2, 6) 15 Respondent. 16 17 Jaime Herrera is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition 18 for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner moved for the action to be 19 stayed and his petition to be held in abeyance pending exhaustion of additional claims pursuant to 20 Rhines v. Weber, 544 U.S. 269, 277 (2005). (Doc. 2.) The assigned magistrate judge found 21 Petitioner failed to show good cause for the stay, and recommended the motion be denied. (Doc. 22 6.) 23 The Findings and Recommendations included a notice that any objections thereto were to 24 be filed within 21 days of service. (Doc. 6 at 3.) In addition, the Court advised Petitioner that the 25 “failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Order of the 26 District Court.” (Id., citing Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).) No objections have 27 been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired. 28 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo review of the case. 1 | Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 2 || Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 3 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on June 15, 2022 (Doc. 6), are 4 ADOPTED IN FULL. 5 2. Petitioner’s motion for stay (Doc. 2) is DENIED. 6 3. The matter is referred to the magistrate judge for further proceedings pursuant to 7 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: _ July 22, 2022 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28