(HC) Benanti v. Ciolli ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL BENANTI, No. 1:20-cv-00537-AWI-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. No. 6) 13 ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR 14 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 15 ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 16 A. CIOLLI, [NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY 17 IS REQUIRED] Respondent. 18 19 20 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for 21 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On May 6, 2020, the Magistrate Judge 22 assigned to the case issued Findings and Recommendation to dismiss the petition for failure to 23 state a claim. (Doc. No. 6.) This Findings and Recommendation was served upon all parties and 24 contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of 25 service of that order. On June 2, 2020, Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 26 Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. No. 7.) 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a 28 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including Petitioner's 1 | objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation is 2 | supported by the record and proper analysis. The Court agrees that the due process requirements 3 | as delineated by Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555 (1974), were met in this case. 4 | Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate Judge's analysis. 5 In the event an appeal is filed, a certificate of appealability will not be required insofar as 6 | this is an order dismissing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, nota 7 | final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process 8 || issued by a State court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997); see Ojo 9 | v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 681-682 (Sth Cir. 1997); Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 10 | 1996). 11 Accordingly, the Court orders as follows: 12 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 6, 2020 (Doc. No. 6), is 13 | ADOPTED IN FULL; 14 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 15 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE THE CASE; 16 and, 17 4. In the event an appeal is filed, a certificate of appealability will not be required. 18 This order terminates the action in its entirety. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 91 | Dated: _December 15, 2020 —= ZS Cb □□ SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28