1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONOVAN CHAD BREVIK, No. 2:23-cv-01639-KJM-EFB (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 CHARLES SCHUYLER, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner proceeds without counsel in this petition for writ of habeas under 28 U.S.C. 18 § 2254. On August 5, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 19 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 20 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 6. Neither party 21 has filed objections. 22 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 23

(9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 24 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey,

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 25 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 26 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 27 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 28 ///// ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 5, 2024 (ECF No. 43), are adopted in 3 | full; 4 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 29) is DENIED AS MOOT; 5 3. Petitioner’s Second Amended Petition (ECF No. 39) is deemed the operative pleading 6 | in this action; 7 4. Respondent shall file and serve a response to the Second Amended Petition within 60 8 | days of the date of this order, accompanied by all transcripts or other documents relevant to the 9 || determination of the issues presented by the petition. See Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the 10 | U.S. District Courts, Rules 4 & 5; and 11 5. Petitioner shall file and serve a reply, if any, within 30 days of service of an answer. 12 | DATED: October 3, 2024.

14 = W/ □□ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28