1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BONIFACIO CARLOS-TOFOLLA, No. 2:22-cv-01742-DAD-SCR 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 14 DAVID BREWER, HABEAS PETITION 15 Respondent. (Doc. No. 6) 16 17 Petitioner Bonifacio Carlos-Tofolla is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition 18 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. The matter was referred to a United 19 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 19, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge ordered petitioner to submit an 21 affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma pauperis or the appropriate filing fee within 22 thirty days of the entry of that order. (Doc. No. 5 at 1.) Petitioner was cautioned that failure to 23 comply with that order would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. (Id.) To 24 date, petitioner has not filed either an affidavit in support of his request to proceed in forma 25 pauperis or the requisite filing fee. 26 On June 7, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 27 recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice due to petitioner’s failure to 28 comply with the court’s order. (Doc. No. 6.) The findings and recommendations were served 1 | upon petitioner and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen 2 | (14) days after service. (/d. at 1.) To date, petitioner has not filed any objections and the time in 3 | which to do has passed. 4 In accordance with the provisions of

(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a 5 | de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 6 | pending findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 7, 2024 (Doc. No. 6) are 9 adopted in full; 10 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. No. 1) is dismissed, without 11 prejudice;! 12 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: December 6, 2024 □□□ A. 2, ye 15 DALE A. DROZD 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 76 | Because petitioner is a federal prisoner bringing a § 2241 petition, a certificate of appealability 27 || is not required. See Harrison v. Ollison,

(9th Cir. 2008) (“The plain language of [28 U.S.C.] § 2253(c)(1) does not require a petitioner to obtain a COA in order to appeal the 28 | denial of a § 2241 petition.”).