1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL POSEY, III, No. 2:24-cv-2805-TLN-CSK 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 WARDEN, FCI-HERLONG, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner Daniel Posey, III (“Petitioner”), a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed an 18 application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

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

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 12, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 Although it appears from the file that petitioner’s copy of the findings and 25 recommendations was returned, petitioner was properly served. It is petitioner’s responsibility to 26 keep the Court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service 27 of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. 28 //// 1 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

(9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 3 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist.,

, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 4 the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 5 the magistrate judge’s analysis.1 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 24) are adopted in full; and 8 2. This action is dismissed without prejudice based on petitioner’s failure to prosecute. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Date: June 17, 2025 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 1 A certificate of appealability is not required for an appeal from the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought pursuant to

. See

; Harrison v. 28 Ollison,

(9th Cir. 2008).