The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 CHESTER BROWN, No. 2:19-cv-000291-TLN-CKD
10 Petitioner,
11 v. ORDER
12 WARREN L. MONTGOMERY,
13 Respondent.
14
15 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas
16 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
17 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
18 On September 26, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
19 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to
20 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Neither party has
21 filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
22 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602
23 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
24 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed
25 the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by
26 the magistrate judge’s analysis.
27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
28 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 26, 2022, are ADOPTED IN
1 FULL.
2 2. The petition is DENIED.
3 3. The Clerk of Court shall close this action.
4 4. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. §
2253.
6 | DATED: December 15, 2022
7 /
“ eck
° Troy L. Nuhlep ]
10 United States District Judge
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28