Opinion
2:23-cv-00670-EFB (HC)
09-13-2023
ALBERTO MUNOZ, Petitioner, v. WARDEN, Respondent.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding without counsel in this petition for writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On July 8, 2023, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. ECF No. 8. On August 8, 2023, the court informed petitioner of the requirements for filing an opposition to a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 10. That order gave petitioner twenty-one (21) days to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition. Id. The order also warned petitioner that his failure to respond to the motion to dismiss would result in the dismissal of this action. Id.
The time for acting has passed and petitioner has not filed an opposition or a statement of non-opposition, nor has he otherwise responded to the court's order.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action.
Further, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. See E.D. Cal. L.R. 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)(1). 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).