1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAROLD COURTNEY JARVIS, No. 2:20-cv-00480 KJM GGH P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 MARCUS POLLARD, 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 September 29, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. ECF No. 20. Neither 23 party has 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, and adopts the magistrate judge’s threshold 3 || recommendation that the Petition be dismissed as time-barred. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 29, 2020, are adopted in full; 6 2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) is granted; 7 3. The Petition (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with prejudice because it is barred by the 8 || AEDPA statute of limitations; and 9 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 10 | § 2253. 11 | DATED: March 31, 2021. 12 13 ee 4 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28