(HC) Wilcox v. Merlak ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SIMON LEE WILCOX, No. 1:19-cv-01410-NONE-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S 14 v. MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. No. 13) 15 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 16 STEVEN MERLAK, Warden, et al., ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 17 ASSIGN DISTRICT JUDGE FOR PURPOSE Respondents. OF CLOSING CASE AND THEN ENTER 18 JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 19 (Doc. No. 18) 20 21 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding in propria persona with a petition for writ of 22 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On March 2, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge 23 issued findings and recommendations recommending that respondent’s motion to dismiss the 24 pending petition for lack of standing and ripeness, failure to exhaust, and lack of jurisdiction be 25 granted. (Doc. Nos. 13, 18.) The findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and 26 contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of 27 service of that order. To date, no party has filed objections and the time for doing so has passed. 28 ///// MASS Leb EIT EUAN ISIN ONO ae AY ee 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 2 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 3 | findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 A certificate of appealability is not be not required in this case because this is an order 5 | denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not a final 6 | order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by 7 || astate court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997); see Ojo v. INS, 8 | 106 F.3d 680, 681-682 (Sth Cir. 1997); Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). 9 Accordingly: 10 1. The findings and recommendations, filed March 2, 2020 (Doc. No. 18), are 11 | ADOPTED IN FULL; 12 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED; 13 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 14 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to assign a district judge to this case for the purpose 15 | of closing the case and then to ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE THE CASE; and, 16 5. In the event a notice of appeal is filed, no certificate of appealability will be 17 | required. 18 This order terminates the action in its entirety. 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. me □ | Dated: _ April 15, 2020 Yi A Dred 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28