(HC) Stuart v. St. Andre ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY D. STUART, No. 2:24-cv-2057 WBS CSK P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 ROB ST. ANDRE, 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 08, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner did not file 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). Having 27 reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 28 and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 4) are adopted in full; 3 2. This action is dismissed; and 4 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 5 || § 2253. 6 || Dated: September 27, 2024 he Ha (hii.b-— WILLIAM B. SHUBB 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 /stua24cv2057.800.he 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28