(HC) Quinteros v. Cisneros ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAVIER AUGUSTO QUINTEROS, No. 2:23-cv-01999-KJM-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 THERESA CISNEROS, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 19 provided by Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On May 14, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on the parties, and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the 22 time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 25 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. ] Before petitioner can appeal this decision, a certificate of appealability must be issued. 2 || See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Where the petition is denied on procedural 3 || grounds, a certificate of appealability “should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists 4 || of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a 5 || constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was 6 || correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). The court finds 7 || the petitioner has not made this showing and thus declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 9 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 14, 2024, ECF No. 13, are 10 || adopted in full. 11 2. Respondent’s unopposed motion to dismiss, ECF No. 9, is GRANTED. 12 3. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice as untimely. 13 4. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. 14 5. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. 15 | DATED: September 9, 2024. 16 13 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28