1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANUEL F. GONZALEZ-SINALOA, Case No. 1:24-cv-01078 JLT SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, 13 v. DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING 14 WARDEN, FCI MENDOTA, CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE THE CASE 15 Respondent. (Doc. 6) 16 17 Manuel F. Gonzalez-Sinaloa is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 18 with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

, asserting he suffered 19 violations of due process with disciplinary proceedings. (See Doc. 1.) The magistrate judge 20 performed a preliminary review of the petition and found “there is no dispute that all procedural 21 due process requirements were met.” (Doc. 6 at 3.) In addition, the magistrate judge determined 22 Plaintiff failed to show “there was not at least ‘some evidence’ to support the guilty finding.” (Id. 23 at 4.) The magistrate judge found all other claims implicated in the petition were “completely 24 supported, vague, and speculative.” (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge recommended the 25 Court dismiss the petition. (Id.) 26 Petitioner filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Doc. 7.) He 27 asserts that he declines the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, and “request[s] that the 28 recommendation be stricken from the record in this mater...” (Id. at 1.) Petitioner does not ee OI I III EIEIO IER ISIE ISIE IIE REO

1 | otherwise address the findings of the magistrate judge related to the claims raised in his petition. 2 || (See generally Doc. 7.) 3 Petitioner’s consent was not required for the magistrate Judge to perform a preliminary 4 | review of his petition. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 5 |

(b)(1)(B), under which a magistrate judge may “submit to a judge of the court 6 | proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition” of certain matters. The 7 | magistrate judge did not issue dispositional order, or act beyond the scope of her authority. 8 | Rather, the magistrate judge prepared the Findings and Recommendations as authorized under 28 9 | U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Thus, Petitioner fails to show any error on these grounds. 10 According to

(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 11 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, including Petitioner’s objections, the Court concludes 12 | the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Based upon 13 | the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on September 16, 2024 (Doc. 6), are 15 ADOPTED in full. 16 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice. 17 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 18 4. In the event a notice of appeal is filed, no certificate of appealability is □□□□□□□□□□ 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 | Dated: _ October 9, 2024 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 □□ ' A certificate of appealability will not be required because this is an order denying a petition for writ of 27 || habeas corpus pursuant to

, “not a final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court.” Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 28 |

(9th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).