(HC) Garcia v. Thompson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOHN GARCIA, IV, No. 2:21-cv-01852-KJM-CKD P 11 Petitioner, 12 v. ORDER 13 PAUL THOMPSON, 14 Respondent. 15 16 Petitioner, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 17 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 18 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On April 21, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 20 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 21 and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Neither party has filed objections 22 to the findings and recommendations. 23 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 24 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 25 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 26 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 27 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 28 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed April 21, 2022, are adopted in full; 3 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 7) is granted. 4 3. Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is 5 || dismissed without prejudice based on lack of ripeness. 6 3. The Clerk of Court shall close this action. 7 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 8 || § 2253 as one is unnecessary in this case. See Forde v. U.S. Parole Com’n, 114 F.3d 878, (9th 9 || Cir. 1997). 10 | DATED: June 9, 2022. 1] 12 ee B CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28