1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 TAIMOOR ZAMAN, Case No. CV 23-0177-MWF (PD)

12 Petitioner ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 BRYAN BIRKHOLZ, Warden, JUDGE 15 Respondent.

16 17 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the relevant 18 records on file, the briefing from the parties including the supplemental submissions, 19 and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge 20 recommending the Petition be dismissed without prejudice (“Report,” Docket No. 21 15). 22 Preliminarily, the Court notes that Petitioner does not object to the primary 23 basis of the Report’s recommendation: that Petitioner is statutorily barred from 24 applying First Step Act (“FSA”) credits to his sentence. (Docket No. 15 at 3-5). 25 Petitioner’s failure to refute that determination is fatal to his objections and the 26 Petition. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985) (“The statute [pertaining to 27 objections review] does not on its face require any review at all, by either the district 28 court or the court of appeals, of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). 1 Instead, Petitioner has objected to the Report’s findings and conclusions 2 regarding: (1) his failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and (2) service of the 3 Final Order of Removal (“Removal Order”). (Docket No. 17). The Court has 4 conducted a de novo review of the portions of the Report to which those objections 5 are directed. Although not required, in an abundance of caution the Court briefly 6 discusses the objections. See United States v. Ramos,

(9th Cir. 7 2023) (“the district court ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of 8 each objection”); Wang v. Masaitis,

(9th Cir. 2005) (affirming a 9 cursory district court order summarily adopting, without addressing any objections, 10 a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). 11 First, even if the Court were to conclude Petitioner’s claim was exhausted or 12 that unexhaustion should be waived — which it does not for the reasons stated in the 13 Report (Docket No. 15 at 5-6) — as mentioned Petitioner has failed to establish that 14 he may apply FSA credits to his sentence in the first place. Accordingly, even 15 excusing the exhaustion requirement, Petitioner has not shown he is entitled to 16 relief. 17 Second, Petitioner repeats his argument that the Removal Order was not 18 properly served. (Docket No. 17 at 2-3). Petitioner claims that the Report “without 19 a supporting citation incorrectly states that ‘Petitioner received the [Removal Order] 20 on February 24, 2023.’” (Docket No. 17 at 2-3). Petitioner misquotes and 21 mischaracterizes the Report. The Report states that “Petitioner was presented with 22 the [Removal Order] on February 24, 2023,” goes on to explain how Petitioner 23 refused to acknowledge receipt of it by signature, and specifically cites to the 24 Removal Order marked “refused.” (See Docket No. 15 at 3 n.1 (emphasis added), 25 citing Docket No. 8 at 26). Petitioner’s contention is without merit. 26 The objections are overruled. 27 /// 28 /// 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 2 (1) The Report is ACCEPTED and adopted as the Court’s own findings and 3 || conclusions; and 4 (2) Judgment be entered DISMISSING the Petition without prejudice. 5 = 6 / ye 7 Dated: November 20, 2023 | ‘ MICHAEL W. FITZG D United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28