Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mao Sophan v. C. Gipson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 17, 2012

MAO SOPHAN, PETITIONER,
v.
C. GIPSON, RESPONDENT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel, with a habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On March 5, 2012, respondent filed a motion to dismiss. Petitioner did not file an opposition. Accordingly, on May 11, 2012, the court ordered petitioner to show cause within thirty days for his failure to oppose respondent's motion. In this order, the court warned petitioner that his failure to oppose the motion would be deemed a waiver of opposition to the granting of the motion.

In response to the order to show cause, on May 29, 2012 petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time to file his opposition. On June 1, 2012, the court granted petitioner thirty days to file his opposition.

On June 28, 2012, petitioner filed a second motion for extension of time to file his opposition. On July 5, 2012, the court granted petitioner thirty days to file his opposition and further ordered that no further extensions of time would be granted. Thirty days passed and petitioner did not file his opposition. Accordingly, plaintiff's failure to file an opposition is deemed a waiver of opposition.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 11) be granted.

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 twenty-one 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." If petitioner files objections, he shall also address whether a certificate of appealability should issue and, if so, why and as to which issues. A certificate of appealability may issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 "only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

soph3364.dis

20120817

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.