-DAD (HC) Opland v. Ives, No. 2:2011cv00767 - Document 6 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 10/7/2011 ORDERING the clerk to randomly assign a US District Judge to this action; and RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed w/out prejudice. Assigned and Referred to Judge Kimberly J. Mueller; Objections due w/in 21 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
-DAD (HC) Opland v. Ives Doc. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MICHAEL R. OPLAND, 11 Petitioner, 12 13 No. CIV S-11-0767 DAD P vs. RICHARD B. IVES, 14 ORDER AND Respondent. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 On July 26, 2011, the court dismissed petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas 17 corpus and granted him thirty days leave to file an amended petition. On August 24, 2011, the 18 court granted petitioner a thirty-day extension of time to file an amended petition. The thirty-day 19 period has now expired, and petitioner has not filed an amended petition or otherwise responded 20 to the court’s order. 21 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action. 23 24 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 25 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 26 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 2 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 3 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 4 shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are 5 advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 6 District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 7 DATED: October 7, 2011. 8 9 10 DAD:9 opla0767.fta 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.