1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JACK MORGAN, ) Case No.: 1:24-cv-0844 JLT SAB (HC) ) 12 Petitioner, ) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND ) RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 13 v. ) RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND ) TRANSFERRING THE PETITION OF WRIT OF 14 WARDEN, USP ATWATER, ) HABEAS CORPUS TO THE SOUTHERN ) DISTRICT OF INDIANA 15 Respondent. ) ) (Docs. 9, 11) 16 )

17 Jack Morgan is a federal prisoner proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 18 to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking to challenge a disciplinary proceeding at USP Atwater that resulted in the 19 loss of good conduct credit, thirty days of segregation, and the loss of privileges for sixty days. (See 20 Doc. 1.) Respondent moved to dismiss the petition, asserting the Court lacks jurisdiction because 21 Petitioner was housed at the United States Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana, when he filed the 22 petition. (Doc. 9.) 23 The magistrate judge observed that although the petition indicated Petitioner was housed at 24 USP Atwater when the document was signed on June 27, 2024, a copy of Petitioner’s “Inmate 25 History” submitted by Respondent that showed Petitioner was transferred from Atwater and arrived at 26 USP Terre Haute on June 5, 2024. (Doc. 9 at 2, citing App. 41 [Doc. 9-1 at 42].) The magistrate 27 judge found that because venue is proper in the district of confinement, and “Petitioner has been 28 housed at USP Terre Haute throughout the pendency of this action,” the proper venue for this petition 1 the Southern District of Indiana. (/d. at 3.) The magistrate judge also determined that transfer to tt 2 || proper venue “is appropriate in the interest of justice.” (U/d.) Therefore, the magistrate judge 3 recommended the Court deny the motion to dismiss and transfer the petition to the Southern District « 4 || Indiana. Ud.) 5 The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that an 6 || objections were due within 30 days. (Doc. 11 at 3-4.) The Court advised the parties that the “failure 7 || to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of the ‘rights to challenge the 8 || magistrate judge’s factual findings’ on appeal.” (/d., quoting Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 9 |) 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Neither Petitioner nor Respondent filed objections, and the time to do so ha: 10 || expired. 11 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 12 || Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are 13 || supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 14 1. The Findings and Recommendations dated November 27, 2024 (Doc. 11) are ADOPTEI 15 in full. 16 2. Respondent’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 9) is DENIED. 17 3. The petition is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern 18 District of Indiana. 19 20 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ January 7, 2025 ( Li pA LU. wan 22 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28