(HC) Gray v. Hill, No. 2:2014cv01047 - Document 32 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 8/3/15 RECOMMENDING that this action be dismissed. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(HC) Gray v. Hill Doc. 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DAVID EARL GRAY, 11 12 13 No. 2:14-cv-1047-JAM-EFB P Petitioner, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS WARDEN RICK HILL, 14 Respondent. 15 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed an application for a writ 17 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On June 10, 2015, the district judge adopted the 18 undersigned’s findings and recommendations, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss, and 19 directed petitioner to file an amended petition to delete his uncognizable (Claims 5(K), 5(L), and 20 5(P)), unexhausted (Claims 5(J), 5(M), 5(N), 5(O), 5(Q), and 6), and untimely (Claim 8) claims 21 within thirty days of the date of that order. 22 23 24 25 The time period for acting has passed and petitioner has not filed an amended petition or otherwise responded to that order.1 Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Local Rule 110. 26 27 28 1 Petitioner did file an interlocutory appeal from the district judge’s order. As that order was not certified for interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292, on July 30, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 2 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 3 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 4 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 5 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections 6 within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. 7 Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). In 8 his objections petitioner may address whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the 9 event he files an appeal of the judgment in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing 10 Section 2254 Cases (the district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it 11 enters a final order adverse to the applicant). 12 DATED: August 3, 2015. 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.
