Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00449/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00449-2/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

MICHAEL SHAWN ROCHESTER,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0449 DFL KJM P

vs.

JEANNE S. WOODFORD, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss. On May 11,

2005, the court ordered that petitioner file an opposition to respondent’s motion by June 10, 2005

and warned petitioner that failure to file an opposition could result in dismissal under Rule 41(b)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On June 13, 2005, petitioner requested more time to file

an opposition. Petitioner’s request was granted on June 22 and petitioner was granted until July

22, to file his opposition. Petitioner has not filed an opposition. 

Petitioner has failed to comply with the court’s May 11, 2005 order that petitioner

file an opposition to respondent’s motion to dismiss despite being given an extension of time to

do so. Therefore, the court will recommend that this action be dismissed without prejudice under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). 

Case 2:04-cv-00449-DFL -KJM Document 9 Filed 08/11/05 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

In accordance with the above IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action

be dismissed without prejudice.

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, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a

document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections shall be served and filed within ten days after

service of the objections. The parties are 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: August 10, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

roch0449.frs

Case 2:04-cv-00449-DFL -KJM Document 9 Filed 08/11/05 Page 2 of 2