Qusai Mahasin v. Warden, USP Atwater
Qusai Mahasin v. Warden, USP Atwater
Trial Court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 QUSAI MAHASIN, No. 1:25-cv-00363 JLT EPG (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, TERMINATING RESPONDENT’S 14 WARDEN, USP ATWATER, MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE 15 Respondent. (Docs. 8, 10) 16 17 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On October 3, 2025, the magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied and Respondent’s motion to 22 dismiss be terminated.1 (Doc. 10.) The Court served the findings and recommendations on 23 Petitioner and notified him that any objections were due within 30 days. (Id. at 9.) The Court 24 advised him that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 25 appeal the District Court’s order.” (Id. at 10, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,
772 F.3d 834, 838-39 26 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed.
27 1 The magistrate judge noted that “[a]lthough the responsive pleading is titled as a ‘motion to dismiss and response,’ Respondent only addresses the merits of the petition and does not provide grounds for dismissal, as opposed to 28 denial, of the petition.” (Doc. 10 at 2 n.2.) 1 According to
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this 2 | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the findings and 3 || recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. The findings and recommendations issued on October 3, 2025 (Doc. 10) are 5 ADOPTED IN FULL. 6 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED. 7 3. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 8) is TERMINATED. 8 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE THE CASE. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 | Dated: December 11, 2025 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Reference
- Status
- Unknown