Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01093/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01093-2/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

LAMONT ERVIN,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1093 FCD GGH P

vs.

D.K. SISTO, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed November 14, 2007, petitioner was ordered to show cause, within

thirty days, why his action should not be dismissed for failure to file opposition to respondent’s

September 10, 2007, motion to dismiss. The thirty day period has now expired, and petitioner

has not shown cause or otherwise responded to the court's order. Although it appears from the

file that petitioner’s copy of the order to show cause was returned, petitioner was properly served. 

It is the petitioner’s responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. 

Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully

effective.

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that respondent’s motion to dismiss, filed

September 10, 2007, be granted for petitioner’s failure to file an opposition. See Local Rule 11-

110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Case 2:07-cv-01093-FCD-GGH Document 14 Filed 01/17/08 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

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 twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written

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: 01/17/08

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:035

ervi1093.fsc

Case 2:07-cv-01093-FCD-GGH Document 14 Filed 01/17/08 Page 2 of 2