Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00315/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00315-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ken Clark
Respondent
Ronald Fucci
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

RONALD FUCCI,

Petitioner,

v.

KEN CLARK,

Respondent.

 /

1:10-cv-00315-AWI-SMS (HC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION, DISREGARDING

PETITIONER’S REQUEST TO FILE

SURREPLY, GRANTING REQUEST TO

WITHDRAW UNEXHAUSTED CLAIMS,

AND DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO FILE

ANSWER TO MERITS OF EXHAUSTED

CLAIMS WITHIN FORTY-FIVE DAYS FROM

THE DATE OF SERVICE

[Doc. 14]

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

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 

On July 1, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss be DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. 

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. 

On July 7, 2010, Petitioner filed a motion to file a surreply to Respondent’s reply. 

Neither this Court’s order to respond or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for the filing

of a surreply, and Petitioner’s surreply shall be disregarded. On July 19, 2010, Petitioner filed a

motion to withdraw the unexhausted claims. 

///

1

Case 1:10-cv-00315-AWI -SMS Document 17 Filed 08/25/10 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

 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. Petitioner’s motion to file a surreply is DISREGARDED; 

2. The Findings and Recommendation issued July 1, 2010, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

3. The Motion to Dismiss is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part; 

4. Petitioner’s motion to withdraw the unexhausted claims is GRANTED, and the

unexhausted claims are DISMISSED from the action; 

5. Within forty-five days from the date of service of this order, Respondent is

directed to file an answer to the exhausted claims; and

6. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 24, 2010 

0m8i78 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2

Case 1:10-cv-00315-AWI -SMS Document 17 Filed 08/25/10 Page 2 of 2