Thompson
(HC) Elder v. Thompson
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROBERT P. ELDER, No. 2:21-CV-1836-KJM-DMC-P 12 Petitioner,
ORDER
13 v. 14 PAUL THOMPSON, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 19 provided by Eastern District of California local rules. 20 On August 1, 2022, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the 22 time specified therein. No objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 24 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 25 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 26 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo…