1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN SANDOVAL-PASOS, No. 1:25-cv-00525-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

16 Doc. 5 T. TAYLOR, Warden, 17 Respondent. 18

19 20 Petitioner Juan Sandoval-Pasos is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

. This matter was 22 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 23 302. 24 On May 9, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 25 dismiss the petition for failure to state a claim. Doc. 5. Those findings and recommendations 26 were served upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed 27 within twenty-one (21) days after service. No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do 28 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 file, the Court concludes that the findings 3 | and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 The Court notes that the petition will be dismissed without leave to amend because 5 | amendment would be futile. Caswell v. Calderon,

(9th Cir. 2004) (court 6 | may dismiss a habeas petition without leave to amend where amendment would be futile). As the 7 | findings and recommendations explained, petitioner attempts to raise claims which are not 8 || cognizable on federal habeas corpus review. See Doc. 5 at 3-4. Furthermore, the record shows 9 | that the due process requirements of Wolff were satisfied, see

and petitioner did not argue 10 | otherwise, see Doc. 1. Accordingly, amendment of the petition would be futile. 11 In the event a notice of appeal is filed, a certificate of appealability will not be required 12 | because this is an order denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

, 13 | nota final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of 14 | process issued by a state court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission,

(9th Cir. 1997); 15 | see Ojo v. INS,

(Sth Cir. 1997); Bradshaw v. Story,

(10th 16 | Cir. 1996). 17 Accordingly, 18 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 9, 2025, Doc. 5, are adopted in 19 full; 20 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with prejudice; 21 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and 22 4. In the event a notice of appeal is filed, no certificate of appealability is required. 23 24 95 | IT ISSO ORDERED. _ 26 Dated: _ June 19, 2025 4h 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28