(HC) Taylor v. Bureau of Prisons, No. 2:2021cv00227 - Document 23 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/23/2022 ADOPTING 21 Findings and Recommendations, GRANTING 15 Motion to Dismiss, and DISMISSING this action without prejudice. The court DECLINES to issue the certificate of appealability. CASE CLOSED. (Huang, H)

Download PDF
(HC) Taylor v. Bureau of Prisons Doc. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THINTINUS N. TAYLOR, 12 13 14 No. 2:21-cv-0227 KJM KJN P Petitioner, v. ORDER BUREAU OF PRISONS, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas 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 March 14, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 21 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. On March 21, 2022, the findings and 23 recommendations served on petitioner were returned undelivered. On March 23, 2022, the Clerk 24 of the Court re-served the findings and recommendations on petitioner at an updated address 25 obtained through the Federal Inmate Locator. Neither party filed objections to the findings and 26 recommendations. 27 28 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 2 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 3 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 4 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 14, 2022 are adopted; 7 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No 15) is granted; 8 3. This action is dismissed without prejudice; and 9 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 10 § 2253. 11 DATED: May 23, 2022 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.