(HC) Lucero v. The People of the State of California ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY PAUL LUCERO, No. 2:24-cv-00267-KJM-CSK P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 19 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 20 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On March 21, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 22 served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings 23 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner did not file objections to 24 the findings and recommendations. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 27 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 28 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 1 | ....°). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. See Hammond v. Asuncion, No. 18-08788, 3 || 2019 WL 1454200, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2019) (noting “a district court may dismiss a habeas 4 || petition for failure to timely pay the filing fee or submit an IFP application” and collecting 5 || authority). 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 5) are adopted in full; and 8 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice. 9 | DATED: May 1, 2024. 10 1 eee CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28