From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Knight v. Sherman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 13, 2015
No. 2:14-cv-2565-TLN-EFB P (TEMP) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2015)

Opinion

No. 2:14-cv-2565-TLN-EFB P (TEMP)

11-13-2015

VONTRE KNIGHT, Petitioner, v. STU SHERMAN, Warden, Respondent.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

On May 5, 2015, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. Petitioner failed to timely file an opposition, and on June 17, 2015, then-Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd issued an order and directed petitioner to show cause in writing why the court should not grant the pending motion to dismiss the petition. Judge Drozd's order gave petitioner twenty-one (21) days to file any opposition and warned petitioner that failure to do so could be deemed a waiver of any opposition to granting the motion. The twenty-one (21) days have now passed, and petitioner has not filed an opposition to the pending motion to dismiss or otherwise responded to the court's June 17, 2015 order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. See 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." Any response to the objections shall be filed and served within seven 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. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

In any objections he elects to file, 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). DATED: November 13, 2015.

/s/_________

EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Knight v. Sherman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Nov 13, 2015
No. 2:14-cv-2565-TLN-EFB P (TEMP) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2015)
Case details for

Knight v. Sherman

Case Details

Full title:VONTRE KNIGHT, Petitioner, v. STU SHERMAN, Warden, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Nov 13, 2015

Citations

No. 2:14-cv-2565-TLN-EFB P (TEMP) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2015)