(HC) Diaz v. Thompson et al, No. 2:2021cv01755 - Document 14 (E.D. Cal. 2022)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 06/24/22 ADOPTING 13 Findings and Recommendations in full and GRANTING 11 Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice. CASE CLOSED(Licea Chavez, V)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 EDUARDO DIAZ, 10 11 12 13 No. 2:21-CV-01755-WBS-CKD Petitioner, v. ORDER PAUL THOMPSON, Respondent. 14 15 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of 16 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States 17 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On June 1, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 19 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 20 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Neither party has filed 21 objections to the findings and recommendations. 22 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 23 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 24 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having 25 reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record 26 and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 1, 2022, are adopted in full. 1 1 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 11) is granted. 2 3. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is 3 dismissed without prejudice. 4 3. The Clerk of Court shall close this action. 5 Dated: June 24, 2022 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Diaz1755.801.2241.CJRA 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.