Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02982/USCOURTS-caed-2_18-cv-02982-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Shawn Hatton
Respondent
Donald Ortez-Lucero
Petitioner

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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DONALD ORTEZ-LUCERO, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

SHAWN HATTON, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:18-cv-2982-KJM-EFB P 

ORDER 

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding through counsel, has filed an application for a writ 

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

Judge as provided by28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On November 5, 2019, 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. Neither party has filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations. 

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

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

///// 

Case 2:18-cv-02982-KJM-EFB Document 15 Filed 02/18/20 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, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed November 5, 2019, are adopted in full; 

 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied; 

 3. The Clerk is directed to close the case; and 

 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 

DATED: February 18, 2020. 

Case 2:18-cv-02982-KJM-EFB Document 15 Filed 02/18/20 Page 2 of 2