(HC) Reginald Tanubagijo v. Daniel Paramo

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA REGINALD TANUBAGIJO, No. 2:18-CV-2290-MCE-CKD 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER DANIEL PARAMO, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an 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.

20 On June 1, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 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. Neither 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, 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 reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 1, 2021, are ADOPTED in full.

3 2. Petitioner’s motion to submit new claims (ECF No. 43) is DENIED with prejudice.

4 3. Petitioner’s motion to extend the time to file a second amended petition (ECF No. 51) | is DENIED as moot.

6 4. A review of the docket reveals that petitioner’s first amended § 2254 application (ECF | No. 27) is fully briefed and therefore deemed submitted on the papers.

8 5. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for the issuance of Findings and | Recommendations on petitioner’s first amended § 2254 application.

10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 | Dated: July 8, 2021 : Mater LEK hu rl ASS □□ - 3 UNITED STAN DIS Rac} 1UDGE