Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00549/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00549-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

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

LEONARD D. JENNINGS,

Petitioner,

v.

PAUL M. SHULTZ, et. al.,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 05-0549 OWW DLB HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING

ACTION WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND

DENYING PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE CIVIL

RIGHTS ACTION

[Docs. 7, 8]

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

On June 10, 2005, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that the

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED. This Findings and Recommendation was

served on all parties and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty (30)

days of the date of service of the order. Over thirty (30) days have passed and no party has filed

objections. In fact, on June 28, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss the instant petition,

without prejudice, and request for an extension of time to file a civil rights action. 

Petitioner’s request to dismiss the action is unnecessary as the Findings and

Recommendations recommend dismissal of the petition, without prejudice. Petitioner’s request

for an extension of time is also unnecessary and improper as the Court cannot grant Petitioner an

extension of time to file a new civil rights action. There is no time limit as to when Petitioner

must file his action, however, Petitioner should bear in mind any applicable statute of limitations.

Case 1:05-cv-00549-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 07/13/05 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

27

28

2

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted

a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds that the

Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued June 10, 2005, is ADOPTED IN

FULL;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; 

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to close this action and enter judgment. 

This terminates this action in its entirety; and 

4. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 12, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00549-OWW -DLB Document 9 Filed 07/13/05 Page 2 of 2