Opinion
2:17-cv-02713 KJM AC P
09-25-2023
MARTIN EMMETT FITZPATRICK, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent.
ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 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.
On August 3, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, 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 twenty-one days. ECF No. 20. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
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) (“[Determinations 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.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed August 3, 2023 (ECF No. 20), are adopted in full;
2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied;
3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253; and
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.