1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ENOCH CONNERS, No. 2:19-cv-0638 KJM DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 PFEIFFER, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus under

. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 19 provided by

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 19, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendation, which 21 were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 16.) Petitioner 23 has not filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 25

(9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey,

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 1 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 19, 2020, are adopted in full; 5 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice and the clerk of court is directed to close 6 this case; and 7 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in

2253. 9 DATED: April 28, 2020. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28