1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DUSTIN MICHAEL JOSEPH, No. 1:25-cv-00685-KES-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING

13 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR PETITIONER’S

14 WARDEN OF MENDOTA, FEDERAL FAILURE TO PROSECUTE AND FAILURE

BUREAU OF PRISONS, TO OBEY COURT ORDERS

15 Respondent. (Doc. 6) 16 17 Petitioner Dustin Michael Joseph is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Doc. 1. 19 This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) 20 and Local Rule 302. 21 On June 6, 2025, following its preliminary screening of the petition, the assigned 22 magistrate judge ordered petitioner to file an amended petition to remedy certain identified 23 deficiencies. Doc. 4. When petitioner failed to timely comply with the Court’s screening order or 24 make any other filing by the deadline, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 25 recommendations on July 7, 2025, that this action be dismissed without prejudice for petitioner’s 26 failure to obey court orders and failure to prosecute this action. Doc. 6. 27 Petitioner was directed to file any objections to the findings and recommendations within 28 14 days of the date of service. Id. at 5. No objections were filed and the time to do so has passed. 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has conducted a de 2 | novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and 3 || recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. As the petition is brought 4 | under § 2241 and the detention complained of does not arise out of a process issued by a state 5 | court, no certificate of appealability is required. See Porter v. Adams, 244 F.3d 1006, 1006-07 6 | (9th Cir. 2001) (citing Forde v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 114 F.3d 878, 879 (9th Cir. 1997)) 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued July 7, 2025, Doc. 6, are ADOPTED in full; 9 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, Doc. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice for 10 petitioner’s failure to obey court orders and to prosecute the action; and 11 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this case. 12 13 14 | IIS SO ORDERED. _ 15 Dated: _ August 6, 2025 4h 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28