1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC C. OLSON, No. 2:23-cv-2384 DJC KJN P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 SUPERIOR COURT, AMADOR

COUNTY,

15 Respondent. 16

17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ 19 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United 20 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On October 24, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and 22 recommendations herein which were served on Petitioner, and which contained 23 notice to Petitioner that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to 24 be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner filed objections to the findings and 25 recommendations. 26 Petitioner contends that his petition seeks relief under California’s Racial Justice 27 Act of 2020 which was not available at the time of his conviction. (ECF No. 14.) 28 However, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 only provides this Court with the authority to review 1 | violations of federal law, not claims arising under state statutory law. 2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 3 | 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case.' Having carefully 4 || reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be 5 | supported by the record and by proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 24, 2023, are adopted in 8 | full; 9 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice; and 10 3. The Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 11 | U.S.C. § 2253 as Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 12 | constitutional right, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 | Dated: _December 1, 2023 “Danl . CDbnetto Hon. Daniel alabretta 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 /o91s02384.804.hc 19 20 21 □□ ' Although Petitioner has filed an appeal of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and 22 | Recommendations (ECF No. 16), that does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction to review the Findings and Recommendations. See e.g., Poye v. Parker, No. 1:08-cv- 23 | 00497-OWW-SMS, 2008 WL 4532515, at *1-2(E.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2008). “Where the 24 | deficiency in a notice of appeal, by reason of untimeliness, lack of essential recitals, or reference to a non-appealable order, is clear to the district court, it may disregard the 25 | purported notice of appeal and proceed with the case, knowing that it has not been 26 deprived of jurisdiction.” Ruby v. Secretary of U.S. Navy, 365 F.2d 385, 389 (9th Cir. 1966). A Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations are not a final 27 | judgement with "subsequent intervention by the district court" and the notice of appeal after before the Findings and Recommendations are adopted is 28 | premature. Serine v. Peterson, 989 F.2d 371 (9th Cir. 1993).