(HC) Bowman v. Schwarzenegger et al, No. 2:2008cv03009 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: [VACATED PURSUANT TO 19 ORDER] FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 08/19/09 recommending that this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 20 days. (Plummer, M) Modified on 9/29/2009 (Yin, K).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Bowman v. Schwarzenegger et al Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GARY STEVEN BOWMAN, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Petitioner, No. CIV S-08-3009 JAM GGH P vs. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, et al., Respondents. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS / By order filed May 6, 2009, this action was construed as a petition for writ of 17 habeas corpus and petitioner was granted thirty days’ leave to file a petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus. On June 12, 2009, petitioner filed an address change. On June 22, 2009, petitioner was 19 re-served with the May 6th order. The thirty day period has now expired, and petitioner has not 20 filed an application or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 21 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 24 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 25 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 26 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 2 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 3 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 4 DATED: August 19, 2009 5 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 GGH:035 bowm3009.fta 8 9 10 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.
