O'Neil v. Burton

Filing 24

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/21/2020 ADOPTING in full 23 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING 21 Petitioner's motion to proceed on his proposed amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Clerk is d irected to DISREGARD 22 proposed amended petition for writ of habeas corpus. This action proceeds on the merits of the petitioner's 1 original petition for writ of habeas corpus, which is fully briefed and submitted for decision. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TERRENCE O’NEIL,

12

No. 2:18-cv-0858 KJM AC P

Petitioner,

13

v.

ORDER

14

ROBERT BURTON, Warden,

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas

17
18

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as

19

provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On December 19, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

20
21

were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the

22

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 23. Petitioner has

23

not filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,

24
25

602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed

26

de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law

27

by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court

28

/////
1

1

. . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be

2

supported by the record and by the proper analysis.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 19, 2019, are adopted in full;

5

2. Petitioner’s motion to proceed on his proposed amended petition for writ of habeas

6
7
8
9

corpus, ECF No 21, is DENIED;
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to designate the proposed amended petition for writ
of habeas corpus, ECF No. 22, as DISREGARDED; and
4. This action proceeds on the merits of the petitioner’s original petition for writ of

10

habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, which is fully briefed and submitted for decision.

11

DATED: January 21, 2020.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2