(HC) Nunez v. Marshall, No. 2:2009cv00926 - Document 11 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/17/09 ORDERING that the Clerk is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action; RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Rnadomly assigned and referred to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton; Objections to F&R due within 20 days. (Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Nunez v. Marshall Doc. 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ABELINO G. NUNEZ, 11 Petitioner, 12 13 No. CIV S-09-0926 DAD vs. JOHN MARSHALL, 14 ORDER AND Respondent. 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS / 16 By order filed April 30, 2009, petitioner’s habeas petition was dismissed and 17 thirty days leave to file an amended petition was granted. On June 15, 2009, petitioner was 18 granted an additional thirty days to file an amended petition. On July 30, 2009, petitioner was 19 granted one final thirty-day extension of time to file an amended petition and was cautioned that 20 failure to do so would result in dismissal of the action. The entire time period has now expired, 21 and petitioner has not filed an amended application or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 22 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this action; 24 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 25 prejudice. See Local Rule 11-110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 2 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 3 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written 4 objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 5 Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the 6 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 7 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 8 DATED: September 17, 2009. 9 10 11 12 DAD:lg nune0926.fta 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.
