1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HECTOR GERMAN-REYES, No. 1:25-cv-00742 JLT SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. (Doc. 11)

14 WARDEN, FCI-MENDOTA, ORDER GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 10), 15 Respondent. DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING 16 CLERK OF COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND CLOSE CASE 17 18 Hector German-Reyes is a former federal prisoner who served a term of imprisonment 19 pursuant to a 2018 judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. He 20 filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

on June 18, 2025, 21 challenging the Bureau of Prisons’ determination that he was ineligible for First Step Act time 22 credits due to an immigration detainer. (Doc. 1.) On August 14, 2025, Respondent filed a motion 23 to dismiss the petition as moot, claiming Petitioner was no longer in BOP custody. (Doc. 10.) 24 Petitioner did not file an opposition. 25 On September 22, 2025, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued findings and 26 recommendations to grant Respondent’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. 11.) The Court served the 27 findings and recommendations on the parties and notified them that any objections were due 28 within 21 days. (Doc. 11.) The Court advised the parties that the “failure to file objections within 1 | the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Ud., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 2 |

(9th Cir. 2014).) No party filed objections, and the time to do so has passed. 3 | Notably, the findings and recommendations served on Petitioner were returned as undeliverable 4 | indicating Petitioner was no longer at the address. 5 According to

(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 6 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the findings and 7 || recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 8 In the event a notice of appeal is filed, a certificate of appealability will not be required 9 | because this is not a final order in a habeas proceeding in which the detention complained of 10 | arises out of process issued by a state court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission,

(9th 11 | Cir. 1997); see Ojo v. INS,

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

| 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996).] Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 13 1. The findings and recommendations issued on September 22, 2025, (Doc. 11), are 14 ADOPTED in full. 15 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 10), is GRANTED. 16 3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice. 17 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case. 18 5. In the event a notice of appeal is filed, no certificate of appealability is required. 19 This order terminates the action in its entirety. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 | Dated: _November 14, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28