1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BOBBY EARL TROTTER, No. 2:21-cv-02266-KJM-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Respondents. 16

17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 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. 20 On February 14, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has not filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 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 | ....°). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 || supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 14, 2022, are adopted in full; 5 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure pay the filing fee and failure to 6 || comply with court orders; and 7 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 8 | DATED: March 24, 2022. 9 10 "1 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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