Juan Carlos Chimborazo Bunay v. Warden of the Golden State Annex Detention...

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JUAN CARLOS CHIMBORAZO No. 1:25-cv-01769 JLT SKO (HC) BUNAY, 12 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND Petitioner, RECOMMENDATIONS 13 (Doc. 6) v. 14 ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS WARDEN OF THE GOLDEN STATE CORPUS AND DIRECTING CLERK OF ANNEX DETENTION FACILITY, et al., COURT TO ENTER JUDGMENT AND 16 CLOSE CASE Respondents.

18 Juan Carlos Chimborazo Bunay is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22 On December 10, 2025, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to summarily dismiss the petition. (Doc. 6). The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified him that any objections were due within 21 days.

25 (Id.). The Court advised him that the “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014)). Petitioner did not file objections, and the time to do so has passed. (See docket).

28 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court performed a de novo review of this | case. Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and | Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Notably, Petitioner raises no | grounds for relief other than that provided by Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 690 (2001) and | provides few facts detailing his detention. Based upon the foregoing, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on December 10, 2025, (Doc. 6), are 6 ADOPTED in full.

7 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED without prejudice.

8 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment and close the case.

9 4. A certificate of appealability is not required in the event an appeal is filed.' 10 This order terminates the action in its entirety. b IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 Dated: _ January 13, 2026 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 ' A certificate of appealability will not be required because this is an order dismissing a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not a final order in a habeas proceeding in | which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court. Forde v. U.S. Parole Commission, 114 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997); see Ojo v. INS, 106 F.3d 680, 681-682 (5th | Cir. 1997); Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996).