1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIKHAEL CHARLES DORISE Case No. 1:22-cv-01423-JLT-CDB (HC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DIRECTING THE CLERK OF 14 B. M. TRATE, COURT TO CLOSE THE CASE, AND DECLINING TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF 15 Respondent. APPEALABILITY (Doc. 1) 16

17 Mikhael Charles Dorise is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with his petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to

. (Doc. 1.) The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On April 17, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations 21 recommending that the § 2241 petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction under Jones v. 22 Hendrix,

(2023), and that the court decline to issue a certificate of 23 appealability. (Doc. 8.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on all parties and 24 informed them that any objections were due in 14 days. (Id. at 6.) In addition, the parties were 25 “advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights 26 on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014); Baxter v. 27 Sullivan,

(9th Cir. 1991)). No party filed objections, and the deadline to do 1 According to

(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de novo review of the 2 | case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes the findings and 3 || recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Having found that Petitioner is not entitled to relief, the Court now turns to whether a 5 | certificate of appealability should issue. A petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus has no 6 | absolute entitlement to appeal a district court’s denial of his petition, and an appeal is only 7 | allowed in certain circumstances. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003); 28 U.S.C. 8 | § 2253. To obtain a certificate of appealability under

(c), a petitioner “must 9 | make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, ... includ[ing] showing that 10 | reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have 11 || been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were ‘adequate to deserve 12 || encouragement to proceed further.’” Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000) (quoting 13 | Barefoot v. Estelle,

, 893 & n.4 (1983)). 14 In the present case, the Court finds that reasonable jurists would not find the determination 15 | the petition should be dismissed debatable or wrong, or that Petitioner should be allowed to 16 | proceed further. Therefore, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Based upon 17 | the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 18 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on April 17, 2025 (Doc. 8) are 19 ADOPTED in full. 20 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of 21 jurisdiction. 22 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the case. 23 4. The Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. 24 95 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 | Dated: __May 20, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28