Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02031/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-02031-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM PHILLIP NEIDINGER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-09-2031 DAD P

vs.

S.M. SALINAS, Warden, ORDER AND

Respondent. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed March 23, 2010, petitioner was ordered to file an amended petition

for a writ of habeas corpus within thirty days from the date of service of the order. The thirty day

period has now expired, and petitioner has not filed an amended application or otherwise

responded to the court’s order.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to

randomly assign this case to a District Judge.

Also, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without

prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twentyone days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

Case 2:09-cv-02031-MCE -DAD Document 10 Filed 05/06/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

objections with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: May 6, 2010.

DAD:4

neid2031.fta

Case 2:09-cv-02031-MCE -DAD Document 10 Filed 05/06/10 Page 2 of 2