Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00085/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00085-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Neuschmid
Respondent
Jay Jerrome Ridley
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 

JAY JERROME RIDLEY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

ROBERT NEUSCHMID, WARDEN, 

Respondent. 

No. 2:20-cv-0085 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

 On March 23, 2020, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, which 

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

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 6. Petitioner has 

not 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 2:20-cv-00085-KJM-AC Document 7 Filed 04/20/20 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 issued March 23, 2020 (ECF No. 6) are 

ADOPTED in full; 

 2. This action is DISMISSED for failure to comply with a court order, see 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1914(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); L.R. 110; and 

 3. The court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253. 

DATED: April 17, 2020. 

Case 2:20-cv-00085-KJM-AC Document 7 Filed 04/20/20 Page 2 of 2