IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 13, 2012
STEVEN DAY, PETITIONER,
RICHARD B. IVES,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS
Petitioner is a former federal prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Respondent answered the petition on March 26, 2012, though petitioner did not file a reply. In this action petitioner seeks the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to re-evaluate his eligibility for one year off from his sentence due to petitioner's participation in a Residential Drug Abuse Program.
However, it appeared that petitioner was released from custody on June 29, 2012. On July 18, 2012, petitioner was ordered to show cause within 14 days why this case should not be dismissed as moot as he has been released from custody. That time period has since passed and petitioner has not responded to the court's order and the order was returned as undeliverable from petitioner's address at the federal facility.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed as moot or in the alternative for petitioner's failure to follow court orders and for failing to keep the court apprised of his current address. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).
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." Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time waives the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.