Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00679/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00679-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John Caldwell
Petitioner
V. Foss
Respondent

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN CALDWELL,

Petitioner,

v.

V. FOSS,

Respondent.

No. 2:19-cv-00679-TLN-GGH

ORDER

Petitioner John Caldwell (“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 February 3, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which 

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

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 15.) Neither 

party has 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). 

///

Case 2:19-cv-00679-TLN-GGH Document 16 Filed 03/09/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

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. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed February 3, 2020 (ECF No. 15), are adopted

in full;

2. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice, for lack of prosecution and for failure to

comply with the court’s order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Local Rule 110;

3. Respondent’s pending Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) is DENIED as moot; and

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 6, 2020 

Case 2:19-cv-00679-TLN-GGH Document 16 Filed 03/09/20 Page 2 of 2