Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05830/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05830-6/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 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States 1

Magistrate Judge. (Court Docs. 5, 10, 12.) 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RONALD JAMES BISHOP,

Petitioner,

v.

R.A. CASTRO, WARDEN,

Respondent.

 /

CV F 03-5830 DLB HC

ORDER STRIKING PETITIONER’S

OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM RECORD

[Doc. 34]

On October 20, 2005, the undersigned issued an order denying Petitioner’s petition for

writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Court Doc. 27.) Judgement was

1

entered this same date. (Court Doc. 28.)

On November 4, 2005, Petitioner filed a request for an extension of time to file an

opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss. (Court Doc. 29.) On November 16, 2005, the

Court issued an order disregarding Petitioner’s request as there was no pending motion to

dismiss. In that order, the Court noted that a notice of appeal from the Court’s order was due

within thirty days from the date of entry of judgment. (Court Doc. 31, at n.1.)

On November 21, 2005, Petitioner filed a motion for an extension of time to file

objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (Court Doc. 32.) On November 23, 2005, the

Court issued an order disregarding Petitioner’s request for an extension of time as the Court’s

Case 1:03-cv-05830-DLB Document 35 Filed 12/13/05 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

October 20, 2005, was not a recommendation, but rather a final order disposing of the case. 

(Court Doc. 33.) 

On December 6, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Court’s October 20, 2005, order. 

As Petitioner has previously been advised, because both parties consented to Magistrate Judge

jurisdiction the Court’s October 20, 2005, was not a recommendation, but rather a final order

disposing of case. Accordingly, Petitioner’s objections are ORDERED STRICKEN from the

record. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 12, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05830-DLB Document 35 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 2