(TEMP)(HC) Nagy v. Davey et al, No. 2:2011cv02948 - Document 39 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Senior Judge William B. Shubb on 11/24/2015 ADOPTING 37 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING 35 Motion to Reinstate the Stay of this Action; GRANTING 36 Motion for Extension of Time to file a Traverse; ORDERING the petitioner to file a traverse in support of his exhausted claims within sixty days. (Michel, G.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL NAGY, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:11-cv-2948 WBS EFB (TEMP) v. ORDER D. DAVEY, et al., 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an 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 October 19, 2015, then-Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd filed findings and 20 21 recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all 22 parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 23 days. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 24 25 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 26 ORDERED that: 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 1 1. The findings and recommendations filed October 19, 2015 are adopted; and 2 2. Petitioner’s motion to re-instate the stay of this action (Doc. No. 35) is denied; and 3 3. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file a traverse (Doc. No. 36) is granted, 4 and petitioner is directed to file a traverse in support of his exhausted claims within sixty days of 5 any order adopting these findings and recommendations. 6 Dated: November 24, 2015 7 8 9 /nagy2948.801hc 10 11 12 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.