Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

James Mitchell v. United States Bankruptcy Court, CV 17-5118-SVW(E). (2017)

Court: District Court, C.D. California Number: infdco20171215859 Visitors: 11
Filed: Dec. 07, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 07, 2017
Summary: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE STEPHEN V. WILSON , Magistrate Judge . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all of the records herein and the attached Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying and dismissing the Petition without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER
More

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, all of the records herein and the attached Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation.

IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered denying and dismissing the Petition without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and the Judgment herein on Petitioner and counsel for Respondent.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Stephen V. Wilson, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636 and General Order 05-07 of the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

PROCEEDINGS

Petitioner filed a "Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241" on July 12, 2017. Respondent filed a "Motion to Dismiss, etc.," on September 22, 2017. The Magistrate Judge ordered that Petitioner file opposition to the Motion to Dismiss within thirty (30) days of September 26, 2017. See Minute Order filed September 26, 2017. The Magistrate Judge cautioned Petitioner that "[f]ailure to file timely opposition to the motion may result in denial and dismissal of the Petition." Id. Nevertheless, Petitioner failed to file opposition within the allotted time.

DISCUSSION

The Petition should be denied and dismissed without prejudice. Petitioner has failed to file timely opposition to a potentially dispositive motion, despite a court order that he do so. The Court has inherent power to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases by dismissing actions for failure to prosecute. Link v. Wabash R.R., 370 U.S. 626, 629-30 (1962). The Court has considered the factors recited in Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-62 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 915 (1992), and has concluded that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. In particular, any less drastic alternative would not be effective under the circumstances of this case.

RECOMMENDATION

For all of the foregoing reasons, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Court issue an Order: (1) accepting and adopting this Report and Recommendation; and (2) directing that Judgment be entered denying and dismissing the Petition without prejudice.

DATED: October 31, 2017. /S/ CHARLES F. EICK UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

NOTICE

Reports and Recommendations are not appealable to the Court of Appeals, but may be subject to the right of any party to file objections as provided in the Local Rules Governing the Duties of Magistrate Judges and review by the District Judge whose initials appear in the docket number. No notice of appeal pursuant to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure should be filed until entry of the judgment of the District Court.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer