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

CHARLES F. EICK, 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. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which any objections have been made. 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 Valerie Baker Fairbank, 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

On June 12, 2019, Petitioner filed a "Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 28 U.S.C. 2241" ("the Petition"). On August 8, 2019, Respondent filed "Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, etc."

The Magistrate Judge ordered that Petitioner file opposition to the Motion to Dismiss within thirty (30) days of August 9, 2019. See Minute Order filed August 9, 2019. 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.

Later, the Magistrate Judge extended until October 30, 2019, the time within which Petitioner could file opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. See Minute Order filed October 15, 2019. Petitioner again 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 court orders 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.