IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
February 1, 2012
REGINALD BLOUNT, PETITIONER,
BOARD OF PRISON HEARINGS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
On October 28, 2011, respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the petition fails to state a cognizable claim and that there no longer exists a live controversy. On December 6, 2011, the court informed petitioner of the requirements for filing an opposition to any motion to dismiss. That order gave petitioner twenty-one days to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition and warned him that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
The time to act has passed and petitioner has not filed an opposition or a statement of no opposition nor otherwise responded to the March 18, 2011 order.
Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.
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).
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.