Opinions and documents
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 GEORGE EUGENE CROSS, also known No. 2:09-CV-0488-TLN-DMC-P
as Arcion,
12
Petitioner,
13 ORDER
v.
14
MICHAEL CORONA,
15
Respondent.
16
17
18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this petition for a writ of habeas
19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
20 Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules.
21 Final judgment was entered in this case on March 31, 2010. (ECF No. 62.) On February
22 5, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations addressing Petitioner’s motion
23 for reconsideration, which were served on the parties, and which contained notice that the parties
24 may file objections within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 115.) Petitioner filed timely objections.
25 (ECF No. 125.)
26 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602
27 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
28 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the
1 | magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”).
2 | Having reviewed the file, including Petitioner’s objections, the Court finds the findings and
3 || recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
5 1. The findings and recommendations filed February 5, 2025, (ECF No. 115), are
6 ADOPTED in full;
7 2. Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration, (ECF No. 75), is DENIED;
8 3. All other pending post-judgment motions, (ECF Nos. 79, 82, 83, 84, 86, 90, 94, 97,
9 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 119, 120, 124, 126, and 132) are DENIED as moot;
10 4. Any similar future requests will be disregarded; and
11 5. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability.
12 | DATED: March 28, 2025
13
14
Z,
16 TROY L. NUNLEY
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.