(HC)Hayes v. Neuschmid

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BLUFFORD HAYES, Jr., No. 2:19-cv-01279-TLN-EFB 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ROBERT NEUSCHMID, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner Blufford Hayes, Jr. (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed this application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21 On March 5, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 30.) On March 19, 2020, Respondent filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 32.)

25 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982); see also Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

5 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.

8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed March 5, 2020 (ECF No. 30), are adopted in full; and 11 2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 19) is DENIED.

12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 DATED: May 8, 2020