1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID GLUTH, No. 2:22-cv-0133 KJM AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 PAUL THOMPSON, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of 18 habeas corpus under

. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge as provided by

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 25, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 6. Petitioner has not filed 23 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. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 25, 2022 (ECF No. 6), are adopted in 5 || full. 6 2. This action is dismissed for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court 7 || order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L-R. 110. 8 | DATED: June 9, 2022. 9 10 ( ti / ¢ q_/ "1 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28