IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 4, 2010
DAVID M. WALTON, PETITIONER,
SACRAMENTO DISTRICT COURT, RESPONDENT.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On May 19, 2009, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On December 21, 2009, the court dismissed the petition with leave to file an amended petition using the proper form and naming the proper respondent within thirty days. That order warned petitioner that failure to timely file an amended petition would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
The thirty days have passed and petitioner has not filed an amended petition or otherwise responded to that order.
Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; L. R. 110.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant).
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.