From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Puckett v. Runnels

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 15, 2006
No. CIV S-04-0604 MCE PAN P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2006)

Opinion

No. CIV S-04-0604 MCE PAN P.

February 15, 2006


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


By an order filed December 1, 2004, petitioner was granted a thirty day extension of time in which to file a petition for writ of habeas corpus with either the $5.00 filing fee or an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis affidavit. The thirty day period has now expired, and petitioner has not filed a petition, either with the filing fee or with an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice.

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 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections with the court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Petitioner is 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).


Summaries of

Puckett v. Runnels

United States District Court, E.D. California
Feb 15, 2006
No. CIV S-04-0604 MCE PAN P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2006)
Case details for

Puckett v. Runnels

Case Details

Full title:JEREMY P. PUCKETT, Petitioner, v. D.L. RUNNELS, WARDEN, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Feb 15, 2006

Citations

No. CIV S-04-0604 MCE PAN P (E.D. Cal. Feb. 15, 2006)