Luis Fermin Herrera v. T. Jusino

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION LUIS FERMIN HERRERA, SR., CASE NO. CV 20-11474-SB(AS) Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, v. CONCLUSIONS AND Warden T. JUSINO, RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Respondent.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all of the records herein and the attached Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. After having made a de novo determination of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections were directed,1 the Court

1 The Court notes that Petitioner’s reliance on Blumling v. United States, 2020 WL 5984395, at *4-*5 (N.D. Ohio, June 18, 2020), to support his claim that he did not need to exhaust administrative remedies since he requested relief from the Bureau } concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation.

IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying the Petition without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the Judgment herein on counsel for Petitioner and counsel for Respondent.

SPL DATED: April 23, 2021

STANLEY BLUMENFELD, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE misplaced. The District Court rejected that portion of the Report and Recommendation in its Memorandum Opinion and Order. Blumling v. United States, 2020 WL 4333006, at 1, 7-9 (N.D. Ohio, July 28, 2020) (“obtaining an adverse decision from the DSCC directly (instead of following the required administrative review process) does not excuse exhaustion.”).