(HC) Jarvis v. Frauenheim

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/31/2021 ADOPTING 20 Findings and Recommendations in full; GRANTING 9 Motion to Dismiss; DISMISSING the 1 Petition with prejudice because it is barred by the AEDPA statute of limitations; DECLINING to issue certificate of appealability. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAROLD COURTNEY JARVIS,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:20-cv-00480 KJM GGH P

v.

ORDER

MARCUS POLLARD,

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 September 29, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which

20
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 twenty-one days. ECF No. 20. Neither

23

party has 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, and adopts the magistrate judge’s threshold

3

recommendation that the Petition be dismissed as time-barred.

4

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

5

1. The findings and recommendations filed September 29, 2020, are adopted in full;

6

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) is granted;

7

3. The Petition (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with prejudice because it is barred by the

8

AEDPA statute of limitations; and

9

4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C.

10

§ 2253.

11

DATED: March 31, 2021.

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