1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 LISA PEREZ, formerly known as LISA No. 2:25-cv-02702-DC-CSK (HC)
BELYEW,
12
Petitioner,
13 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
v. RECOMMENDATIONS
14
LAVELLE PARKER, Warden, (Doc. Nos. 5, 6)
15
Respondent.
16
17
18 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ of habeas
19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge
20 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
21 On March 10, 2026, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein,
22 which were served on Petitioner and contained notice that any objections to the findings and
23 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (Doc. No. 6.) To date, neither party has
24 filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
25 Although it appears from the file that Petitioner’s copy of the findings and
26 recommendations was returned, Petitioner was properly served. It is Petitioner’s responsibility to
27 keep the court updated on her current address. See Barboza v. MCSO Jail Div., No. 1:23-cv-0753-
28 JLT-EPG, 2023 WL 5515987, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2023). Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f),
1 | service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.
2 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602
3 | F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.
4 | See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having
5 || reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record
6 | and by the magistrate judge’s analysis.
7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
8 1. The findings and recommendations filed on March 10, 2026 (Doc. No. 6) are
9 ADOPTED in full;
10 2. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is DISMISSED;
11 3. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 5) is DENIED as
12 having been rendered moot by this order;
13 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case; and
14 3. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C.
15 § 2253.
16
17
12 IT IS SO ORDERED. :
19 | Dated: _July 28, 2026 _ RUC
Dena Coggins
20 United States District Judge
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.