(HC) Aranzubia v. Merlak ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MONICO ARANZUBIA, No. 1:20-cv-00016-DAD-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING 14 STEVEN MERLAK, PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 4) 16 17 18 Petitioner Monico Aranzubia is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for 19 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States 20 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 21 On January 10, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 22 recommending that the pending petition for habeas relief brought by a federal prisoner be denied 23 without prejudice due to petitioner’s failure to first exhaust administrative remedies with the U.S. 24 Bureau of Prisons. (Doc. No. 4.) The findings and recommendations were served upon petitioner 25 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days 26 from the date of service of the order. (Id. at 3.) On January 31, 2020, petitioner filed a notice of 27 no objection to the findings and recommendations, stating that he has been deemed eligible to 28 earn time credits pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d) and therefore “no longer requires the assistance 1 | of the Court in this matter[.]” (Doc. No. 5 at 1.) 2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 3 || de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner’s 4 | notice of no objection, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported 5 | by the record and proper analysis. 6 The court notes that in the event a notice of appeal were nonetheless filed in this action, a 7 | certificate of appealability is not required because this is not a final order in a habeas proceeding 8 | in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court. See Forde v. 9 U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997). 10 Accordingly: 11 1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 10, 2020 (Doc. No. 4), are 12 adopted in full; 13 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied without prejudice; 14 and 15 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 16 | IT IS SO ORDERED. si □ M Dated: _ March 19, 2020 J aL, Al 4 7 a 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28