(HC) Tucker v. Hartley, No. 1:2009cv01199 - Document 24 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER DISREGARDING Petitioner's 23 Objections to Findings and Recommendations, As Untimely, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/3/2010. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
(HC) Tucker v. Hartley Doc. 24 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 JEROME TUCKER, 1:09-cv-01199-AWI-DLB (HC) 7 Petitioner, ORDER DISREGARDING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS UNTIMELY 8 v. 9 [Doc. 23] 10 JAMES D. HARTLEY, Warden 11 Respondent. / 12 13 On March 2, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation to deny 14 the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Objections to 15 the Findings and Recommendation were to be filed within thirty days from the date of service. 16 Petitioner did not file objections. On June 16, 2010, the undersigned adopted the Findings and 17 Recommendation in full and judgment was entered in favor of Respondent. 18 On June 25, 2010, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. 19 Petitioner states that he was transferred from Avenal State Prison on March 1, 2010, to 20 Chuckawalla State Prison. Petitioner states that he did not receive the March 2, 2010, Findings 21 and Recommendation until April 1, 2010. 22 Petitioner’s objections to the Findings and Recommendation shall be disregarded as 23 untimely. Even if Petitioner received the Findings and Recommendation on April 1, 2010, 24 Petitioner waited over two months to submit objections. Accordingly, Petitioner’s untimely 25 objections are disregarded. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 28 Dated: 0m8i78 July 3, 2010 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 Dockets.Justia.com

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.