(HC) Fucci v. Clark, No. 1:2010cv00315 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DISREGARDING Petitioner's 15 Request to File Surreply; ORDER DENYING IN PART AND GRANTING IN PART 11 Motion to Dismiss ; ORDER GRANTING Petitioner's 16 Motion to Withdraw Unexhausted Claims; ORDER DIRECTING Respondent to File Answer to the Exhausted Claims within Forty-Five Days signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/24/2010. Respondent's Answer to Exhausted Claims due by 10/12/2010. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Fucci v. Clark Doc. 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RONALD FUCCI, 10 1:10-cv-00315-AWI-SMS (HC) Petitioner, 11 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DISREGARDING PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO FILE SURREPLY, GRANTING REQUEST TO WITHDRAW UNEXHAUSTED CLAIMS, AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE ANSWER TO MERITS OF EXHAUSTED CLAIMS WITHIN FORTY-FIVE DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE v. 12 KEN CLARK, 13 Respondent. 14 15 / [Doc. 14] 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 18 On July 1, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that 19 recommended Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. 20 This Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any 21 objections were to be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the order. Over thirty 22 (30) days have passed and no party has filed objections. 23 On July 7, 2010, Petitioner filed a motion to file a surreply to Respondent’s reply. 24 Neither this Court’s order to respond or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for the filing 25 of a surreply, and Petitioner’s surreply shall be disregarded. On July 19, 2010, Petitioner filed a 26 motion to withdraw the unexhausted claims. 27 /// 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted 2 a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the 3 Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 5 1. Petitioner’s motion to file a surreply is DISREGARDED; 6 2. The Findings and Recommendation issued July 1, 2010, is ADOPTED IN FULL; 7 3. The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part; 8 4. Petitioner’s motion to withdraw the unexhausted claims is GRANTED, and the 9 10 unexhausted claims are DISMISSED from the action; 5. 11 12 Within forty-five days from the date of service of this order, Respondent is directed to file an answer to the exhausted claims; and 6. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 Dated: 0m8i78 August 24, 2010 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
