Opinion
2:21-cv-1818 KJM KJN P
06-21-2022
VIHY BOHRA, Petitioner, v. PAUL THOMPSON, et al. Respondents.
ORDER
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 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 February 11, 2022, 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 fourteen days. Neither party 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 1 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis and will, therefore, adopt them in full. As the magistrate judge correctly noted, petitioner is not precluded from filing a new petition for relief “[o]nce the BOP applies First Step Act credits or fails to properly apply such credits.” ECF No. 10 at 5.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed February 11, 2022, are adopted in full.
2. Respondent's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8) is granted on the grounds that petitioner's claim is not ripe.
3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
4. The clerk of court is directed to close this case. 2