(HC) Estall v. Doerer

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLES B. ESTELL, No. 1:24-cv-01357-KES-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 13 RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 14 v. CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND 15 CLOSE CASE

16 DOERER, Warden, Doc. 5 17 Respondent. 18

19 20 Petitioner Charles B. Estell is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 21 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was referred 22 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 23 On December 13, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 24 recommendations to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. Doc. 5. Those findings and 25 recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto 26 were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. No objections have been filed, and the 27 28 1 || deadline to do so has expired.! 2 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 3 | novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the findings 4 | and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 5 In the event a notice of appeal is filed, a certificate of appealability will not be required 6 | because this is an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 7 | nota final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of 8 || process issued by a state court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997); 9 | see Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 681-682 (Sth Cir. 1997); Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th 10 | Cir. 1996). 11 Accordingly, 12 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 13, 2024, Doc. 5, are 13 adopted in full; 14 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; 15 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case; and 16 4. In the event a notice of appeal is filed, no certificate of appealability is required. 17 18 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 20 Dated: _ January 19, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 ' The Court notes that the findings and recommendations were returned as undeliverable on 28 | January 13, 2025.