Opinion
No. 2:19-cv-02413-TLN-KJN
04-07-2020
RODRICK HARRIS, Petitioner, v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, Respondents.
ORDER
Rodrick Harris ("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 13, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on Petitioner and which contained notice to Petitioner that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 7.) Petitioner has not filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.
Accordingly, 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); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Having reviewed the file under the applicable legal standards, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis.
1. The findings and recommendations filed January 13, 2020 (ECF No. 7), are adopted in full;
2. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for failure to exhaust state remedies.
3. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: April 7, 2020
/s/_________
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge