From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aranzubia v. Merlak

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 19, 2020
No. 1:20-cv-00016-DAD-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020)

Opinion

No. 1:20-cv-00016-DAD-SKO (HC)

03-19-2020

MONICO ARANZUBIA, Petitioner, v. STEVEN MERLAK, Respondent.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

(Doc. No. 4)

Petitioner Monico Aranzubia is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On January 10, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, recommending that the pending petition for habeas relief brought by a federal prisoner be denied without prejudice due to petitioner's failure to first exhaust administrative remedies with the U.S. Bureau of Prisons. (Doc. No. 4.) The findings and recommendations were served upon petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of the order. (Id. at 3.) On January 31, 2020, petitioner filed a notice of no objection to the findings and recommendations, stating that he has been deemed eligible to earn time credits pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3632(d) and therefore "no longer requires the assistance of the Court in this matter[.]" (Doc. No. 5 at 1.)

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including petitioner's notice of no objection, the court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

The court notes that in the event a notice of appeal were nonetheless filed in this action, a certificate of appealability is not required because this is not a final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court. See Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997).

Accordingly:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on January 10, 2020 (Doc. No. 4), are adopted in full;

2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is denied without prejudice; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 19 , 2020

/s/_________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Aranzubia v. Merlak

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 19, 2020
No. 1:20-cv-00016-DAD-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020)
Case details for

Aranzubia v. Merlak

Case Details

Full title:MONICO ARANZUBIA, Petitioner, v. STEVEN MERLAK, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 19, 2020

Citations

No. 1:20-cv-00016-DAD-SKO (HC) (E.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2020)