Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02812/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02812-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nahu Rodriguez
Petitioner
Gary Swarthout
Respondent

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NAHU RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

GARY SWARTHOUT,

Respondent.

No. 2:14-cv-2812 TLN CKD P

FINDINGS AND RECOMENDATIONS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of habeas 

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On April 6, 2015, respondent filed a motion to dismiss. 

On May 19, 2015, the court ordered petitioner to file an opposition to the motion and petitioner 

was warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure. Petitioner has not filed an opposition to the motion and the time for filing an 

opposition has expired. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without 

prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

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 fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any may file written objections with 

the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to 

Case 2:14-cv-02812-TLN-CKD Document 16 Filed 09/15/15 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

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” In his objections petitioner may address 

whether a certificate of appealability should issue in the event he files an appeal of the judgment 

in this case. See Rule 11, Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (the district court must 

issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant). 

Any response to the objections shall be served and filed within fourteen 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: September 14, 2015

1

rodr2812.dis

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-02812-TLN-CKD Document 16 Filed 09/15/15 Page 2 of 2