Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02193/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02193-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
R. Neuschmid
Respondent
Willie Reynolds
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE REYNOLDS,

Petitioner,

v.

R. NEUSCHMID,

Respondent.

No. 2:19-cv-02193-TLN-GGH

ORDER

Petitioner Willie Reynolds (“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 March 13, 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 twenty-one days. (ECF No. 17.) On April 8, 2020, 

Petitioner filed a “Motion for Reassignment of Previous Request to Stay” which included a 

request for an extension of time to file objections. (ECF No. 18.) The magistrate judge denied 

the motion for reassessment but granted a 30-day extension of time to file objections. (ECF No. 

19.) Neither party has filed any 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 

Case 2:19-cv-02193-TLN-GGH Document 21 Filed 06/17/20 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

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). 

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 March 16, 2020 (ECF No. 17), are adopted in 

full;

2. Petitioner’s motion to stay (ECF No. 16) is DENIED;

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1), is DISMISSED with prejudice; and

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

2253.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 15, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-02193-TLN-GGH Document 21 Filed 06/17/20 Page 2 of 2