FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PATRICK J. WALSH, Magistrate Judge.

This Final Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Hon. George H. Wu, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California. For the reasons discussed below, it is recommended that the Petition be denied and the action be dismissed without prejudice.1

I.

SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

In 2014, Petitioner pleaded guilty to illegal reentry in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan and was sentenced to 60 months in prison. (Petitioner's Motion for Jail Credit at 1; Motion to Dismiss at 3; see United States v. Gonzalez-Almaguer, CR-14-0041-PLM (Doc. Nos. 21, 28).) In 2017, he filed a "Motion for Jail Credit" in the district court in Michigan. In February 2018, the Michigan court transferred the case to the Central District of California because that is where Petitioner is currently incarcerated.

Respondent has moved to dismiss the Petition on the ground that Petitioner did not exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit. Petitioner has not opposed the motion.

II.

ANALYSIS

Petitioner was arrested on March 6, 2014, pled guilty on July 17, 2014, and was sentenced on October 6, 2014. (Petition at 1.) He contends that he was not been given credit for all of the time he spent in custody prior to being sentenced, though he does not specify how much credit he is entitled to.

The Court construes Petitioner's motion as a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Generally speaking, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, prior to seeking habeas relief, a prisoner is required to exhaust his administrative remedies. See, e.g., Martinez v. Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986). The BOP has a four-level administrative review process, beginning with informal review at the prison and ending with final review by the Office of General Counsel in Washington, D.C. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.10-542.19.

Petitioner has not sought administrative review of his claims. (Motion to Dismiss, Sanchez Decl. ¶¶ 4, 5.) Moreover, although exhaustion is not jurisdictional and can be waived under certain circumstances, see Laing v. Ashcroft, 370 F.3d 994, 998 (9th Cir. 2004), Petitioner has not presented any reason for overlooking the exhaustion requirement. As such, the Petition is subject to dismissal for failure to exhaust. See, e.g., Schwarz v. Meinberg, 478 Fed. Appx. 394, 395 (9th Cir. 2012).

III.

RECOMMENDATION

For all of these reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order (1) accepting this Final Report and Recommendation and (2) directing that Judgment be entered denying the instant Petition and dismissing this case without prejudice.