(HC) Dearman v. Kaplan

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RYAN ALAN DEARMAN, No. 2:21-cv-02412-TLN-CKD 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER JULIE KAPLAN, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner, 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 19 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20 On May 3, 2022, 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. (ECF No. 22.) 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.

1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed May 3, 2022, (ECF No. 22), are adopted in 1 full; 4 2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 13), is DENIED; 5 3. Petitioner’s Motion for a Stay, (ECF No. 18), is DENIED; and 6 4. Respondent is directed to file an Answer within sixty days. Petitioner may file a | Traverse within thirty days of service of Respondent’s Answer.

8 | DATED: July 12, 2022 9 / 10 “ \/ of Lor 11 a ZA NL Troy L. Nunley» } 12 United States District Judge