1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION 10 11 LUIS FERMIN HERRERA, SR., CASE NO. CV 20-11474-SB(AS) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 v. CONCLUSIONS AND 14 Warden T. JUSINO, RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 15 STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Respondent. 16

17

18 19

20 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the 21 Petition, all of the records herein and the attached Report and 22 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. After having made 23 a de novo determination of the portions of the Report and 24 Recommendation to which objections were directed,1 the Court 25

26 1 The Court notes that Petitioner’s reliance on Blumling v. United States,

, at *4-*5 (N.D. Ohio, June 18, 27 2020), to support his claim that he did not need to exhaust administrative remedies since he requested relief from the Bureau 28 1 |} concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the 2 || Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation. 3 IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the Petition

5 without prejudice. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this 7 Order, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the 8 9 Judgment herein on counsel for Petitioner and counsel for 10 || Respondent. 11 12 SPL DATED: April 23, 2021 14 15 STANLEY BLUMENFELD, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 misplaced. The District Court rejected that portion of the Report and Recommendation in its Memorandum Opinion and Order. Blumling 26 || v. United States,

, at 1, 7-9 (N.D. Ohio, July 28, 2020) (“obtaining an adverse decision from the DSCC directly 27 (instead of following the required administrative review process) 28 does not excuse exhaustion.”).