imposition of the stay effectively denied Reynaga’s request for an injunction: it was therefore not authorized under subsection (1)(A). Subsection (1)(B) explicitly states that with respect to “applications for posttrial relief made by individuals convicted of criminal offenses,” magistrates may only “conduct hearings, including evidentiary hearings, and [ ] submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of fact and recommendations for [] disposition”. The Magistrate construed Reyna- ga’s action as presenting precisely such an application: subsection (1)(B) therefore did not afford him the authority to enter a stay in that action or to order the Clerk to close the file until Reynaga exhausted his state remedies. Cf. United States v. Sweeney, 914 F.2d 1260, 1263 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Finally, the Magistrate’s order was in
holding that plaintiff had no authority or statutory right for actions proper course was to report actions to proper legal authority holding that the failure to object to the magistrate judges report releases the court from its duty to independently review the motion holding that magistrate had no authority to order clerk not to report a conviction to california authorities holding that rule was not violated where officer stated he made a report but was unable to find it because there was no report to tender to counsel holding that the defendants prior conviction referenced in his presentence report could be taken as admitted because he had made no objection to the facts in his report