(HC) Hill v. Newsom

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AVERY MARQUES HILL, No. 2:19-cv-133-KJM-EFB P

Petitioner, v. ORDER GAVIN NEWSOM, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On March 16, 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. 15. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. 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 Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court ///// . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 16, 2020, are adopted in full; 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied; 3. The Clerk is directed to close the case; and 4. For the reasons set forth in the findings and recommendations, the court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.

DATED: March 24, 2021.