(HC) Tran v. Thompson

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DOUGLAS TRAN, No. 2:21-cv-01707 KJM DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER PAUL THOMPSON, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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.

20 On January 25, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within 20 days. Petitioner 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, 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.

3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 4 1. The motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 2) is denied without prejudice; and 5 2. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial || proceedings.

7 || DATED: May 23, 2022.

9 ( ti / ¢ q_/ 10 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1]