(HC) Robeson v. Hill, No. 2:2011cv03130 - Document 12 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 10/4/2012 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
(HC) Robeson v. Hill Doc. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DOUGLAS ROBESON, 11 Petitioner, No. 2:11-cv-3130 MCE EFB P Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS vs. 12 13 RICK HILL, 14 / 15 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, seeks a writ of habeas corpus 16 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 30, 2012, respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the petition is 18 19 untimely. On July 17, 2012, the court informed petitioner of the requirements for filing an 20 opposition to any motion to dismiss. That order gave petitioner 21 days to file an opposition or 21 statement of non-opposition and warned him that failure to do so would result in a 22 recommendation that this action be dismissed. The 21 days have passed and petitioner has not filed an opposition or a statement of no 23 24 opposition nor otherwise responded to the July 17, 2012 order. 25 //// 26 //// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. 3 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 4 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 5 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 6 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 7 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 8 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 9 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In 10 his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the 11 event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing 12 Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it 13 enters a final order adverse to the applicant). 14 Dated: October 4, 2012. 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.