(DP)(HC) Bunyard v. Davis, No. 2:2015cv01790 - Document 38 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 1/28/16: The findings and recommendations filed January 12, 2016, are adopted in full. Petitioner's motion for equitable tolling 20 is GRANTED IN PART, for a period of sixty-eight (68) days, and the filing date for the petition accordingly is extended to August 31, 2016. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JERRY BUNYARD, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-01790 WBS AC P DEATH PENALTY CASE v. RON DAVIS, Warden, 15 ORDER Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner with counsel, has filed this application for a writ of habeas 17 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 19 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On January 12, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 24 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the relevant portions of the 26 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 27 proper analysis. 28 ///// 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 12, 2016, are adopted in full; and 3 2. Petitioner’s motion for equitable tolling (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED IN PART, for a 4 period of sixty-eight (68) days, and the filing date for the petition accordingly is 5 extended to August 31, 2016. 6 Dated: January 28, 2016 7 8 9 10 11 12 /buny1790.801hc 13 14 15 16 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.