From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stolp v. Holland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 3, 2018
No. 1:16-cv-00560-LJO-JLT (HC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2018)

Opinion

No. 1:16-cv-00560-LJO-JLT (HC)

04-03-2018

GERALD H. STOLP, Petitioner, v. KIM HOLLAND, Respondent.


ORDER MODIFYING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. 41]

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on March 15, 2016. After a stay of the proceedings, the Court issued a scheduling order on October 20, 2017. On February 2, 2018, Respondent filed an answer to the petition. Pursuant to the Court's scheduling order, Petitioner's traverse was due on or before March 5, 2018. Petitioner did not file a traverse within the allotted time, nor did he request an extension of time.

On March 27, 2018, Petitioner filed an untimely traverse. On March 29, 2018, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to deny the petition on the merits. Although the traverse was untimely, the Court has considered the arguments presented therein. /// /// ///

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the Findings and Recommendations are MODIFIED to reflect that Petitioner filed an untimely traverse on March 27, 2018. In all other respects, the Findings and Recommendations remain the same. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 3 , 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Stolp v. Holland

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Apr 3, 2018
No. 1:16-cv-00560-LJO-JLT (HC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2018)
Case details for

Stolp v. Holland

Case Details

Full title:GERALD H. STOLP, Petitioner, v. KIM HOLLAND, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Apr 3, 2018

Citations

No. 1:16-cv-00560-LJO-JLT (HC) (E.D. Cal. Apr. 3, 2018)