Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01281/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01281-3/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

KENNETH R. BYNUM,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-06-1281 LKK EFB P

vs.

BILL LOCKYER, 

Respondent. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Petitioner is a state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On

September 26, 2007, the assigned district judge adopted this court’s findings and

recommendations, granted respondents’ motion to dismiss and dismissed the petition for failure

to exhaust all claims presented. That order directed petitioner to file, within thirty days, an

amended petition containing only his fourth, exhausted claim. 

The 30 days have passed and petitioner has not filed an amended petition or otherwise

responded to that order. 

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b); Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; L. R. 11-110. 

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

Case 2:06-cv-01281-LKK -EFB Document 16 Filed 11/20/07 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

2

after being served with these findings and recommendations, 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.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: November 19, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01281-LKK -EFB Document 16 Filed 11/20/07 Page 2 of 2