Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05383/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05383-5/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

27

28 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALFRED PAUL GALAZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

 v. )

)

C. HARRISON, et al. )

)

Respondents. )

____________________________________)

1:04-cv-05383-TAG HC 

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME 

(Doc. 44)

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. On May 3, 2004, Petitioner filed an amended petition. (Doc. 9). Upon consent of both parties,

the case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Theresa A. Goldner for all purposes on April 6, 2005. (Doc.

24). 

On March 27, 2007, the Court denied the instant petition on the merits and entered judgment in

favor of Respondent and against Petitioner. (Docs. 42 & 43). On May 14, 2007, almost six weeks after

judgment had been entered and the case closed, Petitioner filed the instant motion to extend time to

object to this Court's order denying the first amended petition, and also for a 30- day extension of time

to file his opposition and subsequent appeal. (Doc. 44). 

A petitioner may file objections to a Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation to a District

Judge; however, there are no provisions for filing objections to the decision of a Magistrate Judge when,

as here, the case has been assigned to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes upon consent of both parties.

Due to the fact the petition for writ of habeas corpus had already been denied with prejudice and the

Court's judgment had already been entered before Petitioner filed the instant motion, Petitioner’s motion

is moot and will be denied.

Case 1:04-cv-05383-TAG Document 45 Filed 05/23/07 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

27

28 2

Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file objections and to appeal

(Doc. 44), is DENIED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 22, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:04-cv-05383-TAG Document 45 Filed 05/23/07 Page 2 of 2