(HC) Jacobo-Arizaga v. Thompson et al, No. 2:2021cv01864 - Document 18 (E.D. Cal. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 05/23/2022 ADOPTING 17 Findings and Recommendations in full. This action is DISMISSED for the reasons stated in the 14 Order. The court DECLINES to issue a Certificate of Appealability. CASE CLOSED. (Rodriguez, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Jacobo-Arizaga v. Thompson et al Doc. 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ADRIAN JACOBO-ARIZAGA, 12 No. 2:21-cv-1864-KJM-EFB P Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 PAUL THOMPSON, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed an application for a 17 18 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 31, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 20 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. Neither party has filed objections to 23 the findings and recommendations. Although it appears from the file that plaintiff’s copy of the findings and 24 25 recommendations was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff’s responsibility to 26 keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Under Local Rule 182(f), service of 27 documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 2 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 3 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 4 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 5 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 6 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 31, 2022, are adopted in full; 9 2. This action is dismissed for the reasons stated in the February 23, 2022 order; 10 3. The Clerk is directed to close the case; and 11 4. The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 12 DATED: May 23, 2022. 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.
