1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 J.L. GONZALEZ, Case No. 1:23-cv-0904 JLT SAB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING AMENDED FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING

13 v. RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS,

DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF

14 B.M. TRATE, HABEAS CORPUS, AND DIRECTING

CLERK OF COURT TO CLOSE CASE

15 Respondent. (Docs. 9, 15) 16 17 J.L. Gonzalez is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of mandamus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361. (See Doc. 1.) Respondent moved to dismiss the petition, asserting 19 “Petitioner did not exhaust administrative remedies” and did not provide any support for his 20 claims. (Doc. 9 at 1.) Respondent also asserts that even if Petitioner provided evidentiary 21 support, he is not entitled to mandamus relief. (Id. at 3-5.) 22 The magistrate judge found “the matters that are the subject of this Petition have not been 23 administratively grieved through any of the three levels of the Federal Bureau of Prisons 24 administrative remedy procedure.” (Doc. 15 at 3, internal quotation marks omitted.) Rather, the 25 magistrate judge observed, “it does not appear that Petitioner has even attempted to 26 administratively grieve his claims at all.” (Id. at 4.) The magistrate judge found Petitioner failed 27 to show he was entitled to mandamus relief and recommended that the Court grant Respondent’s 28 motion to dismiss. (Id. at 5.) 1 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that 2 | any objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 15 at 5.) The Court also advised that the “failure 3 | to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s 4 | order.” (Ud. at 5-6, citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) The 5 | Court granted Petitioner an extension of time on September 30, 2024, and ordered him to file any 6 | objections within 30 days. (Doc. 17 at 1.) Petitioner did not file objections, and the time for 7 | doing so has passed. 8 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court performed a de novo review of the case. 9 | Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the Findings and 10 | Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 11 1. The amended Findings and Recommendations issued on August 14, 2024 (Doc. 15) 12 are ADOPTED in full. 13 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) is GRANTED. 14 3. The petition for writ of mandamus is DISMISSED. 15 4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 16 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1g | Dated: _November 21, 2024 Charis [Tourn

TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28