(HC) Reginald Tanubagijo v. Daniel Paramo, No. 2:2018cv02290 - Document 53 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge Morrison C. England, Jr., on 7/8/21 ADOPTING in full 52 Findings and Recommendations and DENYING with prejudice 43 petitioner's motion to submit new claims. Petitioner's 51 motion to extend the time to file a second amended petition is DENIED as moot. This matter is REFERRED back to the magistrate judge for the issuance of Findings and Recommendations on petitioner's first amended § 2254 application. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
(HC) Reginald Tanubagijo v. Daniel Paramo Doc. 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINALD TANUBAGIJO, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:18-CV-2290-MCE-CKD Petitioner, v. ORDER DANIEL PARAMO, Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On June 1, 2021, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 25 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 26 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having 27 reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 28 and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 1, 2021, are ADOPTED in full. 3 2. Petitioner’s motion to submit new claims (ECF No. 43) is DENIED with prejudice. 4 3. Petitioner’s motion to extend the time to file a second amended petition (ECF No. 51) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 is DENIED as moot. 4. A review of the docket reveals that petitioner’s first amended § 2254 application (ECF No. 27) is fully briefed and therefore deemed submitted on the papers. 5. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for the issuance of Findings and Recommendations on petitioner’s first amended § 2254 application. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 8, 2021 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.