1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAURICE K. WILLIAMS, No. 1:24-cv-00759-KES-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF 14 v. COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 15 Doc. 6 16 F. SLIVER, Warden, 17 Respondent. 18

19 20 21 Petitioner Maurice L. Williams is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 22 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. This matter was 23 referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 24 302. 25 On July 8, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 26 dismiss the petition. Doc. 6. Those findings and recommendations were served upon all parties 27 and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days after 28 service. No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired. 1 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 2 | novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the 3 | magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 4 | analysis. The petition fails to state a claim for a procedural due process violation because the 5 || petition asserts only that prison officials failed to follow their own procedures, not those required 6 || by the Due Process Clause. Doc. 1 at 6, 14. The Court “need not consider whether the prison 7 | complied with its own [procedural] regulations.” Walker v. Sumner,

(9th Cir. 8 | 1994), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner,

(1995). A 9 || prisoner’s “right to due process [is] violated only if he was not provided with process sufficient to 10 || meet the Wolff standard.”

As the findings and recommendations explain, the disciplinary 11 | hearing met the Wolff standard. Doc. 6 at 2-3. Petitioner therefore has failed to state a claim. 12 Accordingly, 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 8, 2024, Doc. 6, are adopted in 14 full; 15 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with prejudice; and 16 3. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 17 18 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 20 Dated: _ November 21, 2024 4A . UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22 23 24 25 26 27 28