(HC) Lucero v. The People of the State of California

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TIMOTHY PAUL LUCERO, No. 2:24-cv-00267-KJM-CSK P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Respondent. 16

17 18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 19 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 20 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On March 21, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 22 served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings 23 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner did not file objections to 24 the findings and recommendations. 25 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 26 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 27 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007)…