(HC) Blocker v. Soto, No. 2:2015cv01416 - Document 47 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/24/18 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed 3/9/17, are ADOPTED in full; Respondent's 10/7/15 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13 ) is GRANTED; this action is DISMISSED as barred by the statute of limitations; and the court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C.§ 2253. CASE CLOSED(Becknal, R)

Download PDF
(HC) Blocker v. Soto Doc. 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSHUA BLOCKER, 12 Petitioner, 13 14 No. 2:15-cv-1416 KJM KJN P v. ORDER J. SOTO, Warden, 15 Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas 17 18 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as 19 provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On March 9, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 20 21 served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were timely filed, and 23 the findings and recommendations were adopted in full. (ECF No. 38.) However, on April 6, 24 2017, the undersigned vacated the judgment, and petitioner was granted an extension of time to 25 file objections. Petitioner was cautioned that no further extensions of time would be granted. 26 Despite receiving additional extensions of time, petitioner did not file objections to the findings 27 and recommendations by the November 28, 2017 deadline. Neither has respondent. 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 2 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 3 See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 4 the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 5 the proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 9, 2017, are adopted in full; 8 2. Respondent’s October 7, 2015 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) is granted; 9 3. This action is dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations; and 10 4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C. 11 § 2253. 12 DATED: May 24, 2018. 13 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.