(HC) Wilson v. Thompson ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CORNELL EUGENE WILSON, JR., No. 2:21-cv-0793 DJC KJN P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN, FCI-HERLONG, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an application for a writ 18 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 31, 2023, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations 21 herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that 22 any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 23 days. Neither party filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 Although it appears from the file that petitioner’s copy of the findings and 25 recommendations was returned, petitioner was properly served. It is petitioner’s 26 responsibility to keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant 27 to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully 28 effective. 1 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United 2 | States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The Magistrate Judge's conclusions of law 3 | are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 4 | (9th Cir. 1983). The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and 5 || recommendations to be supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge's 6 | analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The March 31, 2023 findings and recommendations are hereby ADOPTED in 9 full; 10 2. Respondent's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 34) is GRANTED; 11 3. Petitioner's motion to amend (ECF No. 28) is DENIED; 12 4. Petitioner's request to construe his proposed second amended petition as an 13 application to file a successive Section 2255 motion and transfer the case to the 14 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (ECF No. 36) is DENIED; 15 5. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case; and 16 6. Petitioner's application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is 17 dismissed, without prejudice, for lack of jurisdiction. ' 18 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 | Dated: _May 31, 2023 Beek | bbeatie Hon. Daniel labretta 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 | /wils0793.803 26 27 | ' Acertificate of appealability is not required for an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. 28 | § 2253: Harrison v. Ollison, 519 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2008).