1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KAREEM AL-JAML YOUNG,

12 Petitioner, No. 1:23-cv-00055-TLN-CDB

13 14 v. ORDER B. M. TRATE, 15 Respondent. 16

17 18 Petitioner Kareem Al-Jaml Young (“Petitioner”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se 19 and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

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

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(17). 22 On June 16, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 23 that the petition be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (ECF No. 20.) On June 20, 2025, 24 Petitioner filed a notice of change of address and the findings and recommendations were re- 25 served on Petitioner at his new address that same date. (ECF No. 21.) The findings and 26 recommendations contained notice that any objections were to be filed within twenty-one days 27 after being served. (ECF No. 20.) This deadline has now passed, and no objections were filed. 28 /// 1 Although it appears from the file that Petitioner’s copy of the findings and 2 recommendations was returned, Petitioner was properly served. The findings and 3 recommendations were re-served on Petitioner on the day Petitioner notified the Court of his 4 change of address. (ECF No. 20.) Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the 5 record address of the party is fully effective. 6 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 8 See Robbins v. Carey,

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 9 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 10 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 11 the record and the proper analysis. 12 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on June 16, 2025, (ECF No. 20), are ADOPTED in full; 14 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITH 15 PREJUDICE; 16 3. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability; and 17 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case. 18 Date: September 9, 2025 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28