1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AARON JOSEPH CUNNINGHAM, No. 1:25-cv-00180-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 WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 15 ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE

16 WARDEN, FCI-MENDOTA, Docs. 19, 20 17 Respondent. 18

19 20 Petitioner Aaron Joseph Cunningham 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 July 14, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 25 grant respondent’s motion to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies 26 and failure to state a claim. Docs. 19, 20. Those findings and recommendations were served 27 upon all parties and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty- 28 one (21) days after service. No objections have been filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. 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. The dismissal is without 4 | prejudice as to any claim dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and as to any claim 5 | raised that petitioner may later exhaust through the administrative remedy process. See City of 6 | Oakland v. Hotels.com LP,

(9th Cir. 2009), as amended (Aug. 20, 2009) 7 | C‘[Flailure to exhaust administrative remedies is properly treated as a curable defect and should 8 | generally result in a dismissal without prejudice.”). 9 In the event a notice of appeal is filed, a certificate of appealability will not be required 10 | because this is not a final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of 11 | arises out of process issued by a state court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission,

(9th 12 | Cir. 1997); see Ojo v. INS,

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

| 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996). 14 Accordingly, 15 1. The findings and recommendations issued on July 14, 2025, Doc. 20, are adopted; 16 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss, Doc. 19, is granted; 17 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, is dismissed without prejudice; 18 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case; and 19 5. In the event a notice of appeal is filed, no certificate of appealability is required. 20 21 92 | IT IS SO ORDERED. _ 23 Dated: _ August 26, 2025 4h UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25 26 27 28