Opinion
2:18-cv-02290-MCE-CKD
03-14-2023
REGINALD TANUBAGIJO, Petitioner, v. DANIEL PARAMO, Respondent.
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Petitioner, a state prisoner 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 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On January 30, 2023, 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. 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 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.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed January 30, 2023, are ADOPTED in full;
2. Petitioner's first amended application for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 27) is DENIED; and, 3. A certificate of appealability is issued with respect to whether petitioner is entitled to federal habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) based on the state court's decision that a juror's misconduct in tweeting throughout the course of trial did not result in prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (explaining that a petitioner may obtain a COA if “the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed.'”)(citation omitted).
IT IS SO ORDERED.