(HC) Parvin v. Robertson, No. 2:2015cv02461 - Document 31 (E.D. Cal. 2019)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/29/2019 ADOPTING the findings and recommendations filed 6/25/2019, in full; DENYING the petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1 , on the merits; this action is closed.The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. CASE CLOSED (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
(HC) Parvin v. Robertson Doc. 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOHN ALAN PARVIN, 11 12 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-2461 KJM AC P Petitioner, v. ORDER JAMES ROBERTSON, Warden, Respondent. 15 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 17 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 18 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On June 25, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 20 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 21 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Neither party has filed objections 22 to the findings and recommendations. 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 by both the district court and [the appellate] court . . . .”). 27 Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 28 the record and by the proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 25, 2019, are adopted in full. 3 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is denied on the merits. 4 3. This action is closed. 5 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 6 2253. 7 DATED: August 29, 2019. 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.