(HC) Blake v. Warden
(HC) Blake v. Warden
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON JAMES BLAKE, No. 1:24-cv-01035-KES-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING 13 RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 14 v. HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT 15 AND CLOSE CASE
16 WARDEN, FCI-MENDOTA, 17 Respondent. 18
19 20 Petitioner Aaron James Blake is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was 22 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 23 302. 24 On December 13, 2024, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 25 recommendations to grant respondent’s motion to dismiss for mootness. Docs. 9, 11. Those 26 findings and recommendations were served upon all parties and contained notice that any 27 objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. No objections have 28 been filed, and the deadline to do so has expired. 1 In accordance with the provisions of
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 2 | novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court concludes that the findings 3 | and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 In the event a notice of appeal is filed, a certificate of appealability will not be required 5 | because this is an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241, 6 | nota final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of 7 | process issued by a state court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission,
114 F.3d 878(9th Cir. 1997); 8 | see Ojo v. INS,
106 F.3d 680, 681-682(5th Cir. 1997); Bradshaw v. Story,
86 F.3d 164, 166(10th 9 | Cir. 1996). 10 Accordingly, 11 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 13, 2024, Doc. 11, are 12 adopted in full; 13 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, Doc. 9, is granted; 14 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with prejudice; 15 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and 16 5. In the event a notice of appeal is filed, no certificate of appealability is required. 17 18 19 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 20 Dated: _ January 19, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown