Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01199/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01199-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James D. Hartley
Respondent
Jerome Tucker
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEROME TUCKER,

Petitioner,

v.

JAMES D. HARTLEY, Warden

Respondent.

 /

1:09-cv-01199-AWI-DLB (HC)

ORDER DISREGARDING PETITIONER’S

OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS AS UNTIMELY

[Doc. 23]

On March 2, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendation to deny

the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Objections to

the Findings and Recommendation were to be filed within thirty days from the date of service. 

Petitioner did not file objections. On June 16, 2010, the undersigned adopted the Findings and

Recommendation in full and judgment was entered in favor of Respondent.

On June 25, 2010, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. 

Petitioner states that he was transferred from Avenal State Prison on March 1, 2010, to

Chuckawalla State Prison. Petitioner states that he did not receive the March 2, 2010, Findings

and Recommendation until April 1, 2010. 

Petitioner’s objections to the Findings and Recommendation shall be disregarded as

untimely. Even if Petitioner received the Findings and Recommendation on April 1, 2010,

Petitioner waited over two months to submit objections. Accordingly, Petitioner’s untimely

objections are disregarded. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 3, 2010 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

1

Case 1:09-cv-01199-AWI-DLB Document 24 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 1