1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 KEITH ANTHONY WILLIAMS, Case No. 2:24-cv-04441-PA-KES

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND 13 v. RECOMMENDATION OF U.S.

14 JAMES ENGLEMAN, Warden, MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 Respondent.

16

17

18 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Petition (Dkt. 1), the

19 other records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United

20 States Magistrate Judge (“R&R” at Dkt. 12). No objections to the Report and

21 Recommendation have been filed. The R&R recommends dismissing the Petition

22 as moot, because Petitioner has been released from custody and he failed to oppose

23 Respondent’s motion to dismiss the Petition on that basis. (Id. at 4.) When a copy

24 of the R&R was mailed to Petitioner, it was returned as undeliverable. (Dkt. 14,

25 15.)

26 The Court accepts the report, findings, and recommendations of the

27 Magistrate Judge.

28 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered dismissing the 2 | Petition as moot. 3 As a federal prisoner proceeding under

, Petitioner is not 4 | required to obtain a certificate of appealability (“COA”) in order to appeal to the 5 || United States Court of Appeals in this case. See Harrison v. Ollison,

, 6 | 958 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding that the plain language of

(c)(1) does 7 | not require federal prisoners bringing § 2241 petitions to obtain a COA in order to 8 | appeal, unless the § 2241 petition “is merely a ‘disguised’ § 2255 petition’); see 9 | e.g., Tomlinson v. Caraway, No. 14-cv-020094-VBF-KK,

| 131448 at *2,

at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2014) (adopting report 11 | and recommendation and noting that petitioner in federal custody was not required 12 | to obtain a COA to appeal the denial of his § 2241 petition). 3 } 2 14 | DATED: August 28, 2024 Thy, CYCLE 15 pert ANDERSON 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 | Presented by: 8) Tous E. Seat 19 | KAREN E. SCOTT 99 | UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28