TOWNES v. BOP, 2:15-cv-0731 CKD P. (2016)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20160113690
Visitors: 27
Filed: Jan. 12, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 12, 2016
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241. The parties have consented to have all matters in this case before a United States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. 636(c). On November 2, 2015, the court ordered petitioner to file an opposition to respondent's pending motion to dismiss. Petitioner was warned that failure to file an opposition would result in dismissal. T
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241. The parties have consented to have all matters in this case before a United States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. 636(c). On November 2, 2015, the court ordered petitioner to file an opposition to respondent's pending motion to dismiss. Petitioner was warned that failure to file an opposition would result in dismissal. Th..
More
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with an application for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The parties have consented to have all matters in this case before a United States Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
On November 2, 2015, the court ordered petitioner to file an opposition to respondent's pending motion to dismiss. Petitioner was warned that failure to file an opposition would result in dismissal. The time allotted to petitioner to file his opposition has expired without petitioner filing an opposition.1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDRED that this action is dismissed without prejudice.
FootNotes
1. Although it appears from the docket that this court's November 30, 2015 order granting petitioner an extension of time to file his opposition was returned to the court, it is the petitioner's responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.
Source: Leagle
