1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RASHID DESHAWN DEARY-SMITH, No. 2:20-cv-00572 KJM AC 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 STUART SHERMAN, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a former state prisoner proceeding through retained counsel, filed an 18 application for a writ of habeas corpus under

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

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 2, 2024, 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. 48. 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 (ECF No. 48) are adopted in full; 5 2. Petitioner’s motion to dismiss the pending habeas corpus action (ECF No. 47) is 6 || construed as a request for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of 7 | Civil Procedure; 8 3. So construed, this action is voluntarily dismissed and this case is closed. 9 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 10 | § 2253. 11 | DATED: August 16, 2024. 12 13 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28