The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MARK ANTHONY BROWN, No. 2:20-cv-01746-TLN-KJN
12 Petitioner,
13 v. ORDER
14 DAVID BAUGHMAN,
15 Respondent.
16
17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas
18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20 On May 12, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which
21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the
22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 55.) Neither
23 party filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
24 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602
25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). The Court has
27 reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and
28 by the magistrate judge’s analysis.
1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed May 12, 2022, (ECF No. 55), are adopted;
3 2. Petitioner’s Motion to Stay, (ECF No. 13), is DENIED;
4 3. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 16), is GRANTED except for Petitioner’s
5 | claim based on Senate Bill 620;
6 4. Petitioner’s claim based on Senate Bill 620 is DISMISSED for failing to state a
7 | cognizable claim for relief; and
8 5. The Court declines to issue the Certificate of Appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 8
9 2253.
10 | DATED: July 12, 2022
/)
ww (. Take
14 Troy L. Nunley) }
United States District Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28