(HC) Kokolios v. Diaz, No. 2:2020cv00933 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/27/2021 ADOPTING the findings and recommendations filed 4/7/2021, in full;DISMISSING this action for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, and for failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the court's 5/15/2020 order; and the Court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 2253. CASE CLOSED. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
(HC) Kokolios v. Diaz Doc. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE JOHN KOKOLIOS, 12 No. 2:20-cv-00933-KJM-JDP (HC) Petitioner, 13 v. 14 RALPH DIAZ, 15 ORDER Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 17 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 19 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 7, 2021 the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on petitioner and which contained notice to petitioner that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Petitioner has not filed objections to 23 the findings and recommendations. The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 25 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 26 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 27 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 2 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 7, 2021, are adopted in full; 5 2. This action is dismissed for failure to prosecute, failure to comply with court orders, 6 and for failure to state a claim for the reasons set forth in the court’s May 15, 2020 order; and 7 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 8 § 2253. 9 DATED: May 27, 2021. 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.