United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2022

(HC) Mickling v. Trate

(HC) Mickling v. Trate
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided April 11, 2022
(HC) Mickling v. Trate

Trial Court Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MAURICE MICKLING, No. 1:22-cv-00010 JLT SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. AND DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT WARDEN TRATE, (Docs. 9, 11) 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner has moved the Court to enter default judgment. (Doc. 9.) The assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations to deny Petitioner’s motion. (Doc. 11.)

19 The magistrate judge observed that the respondent was granted an extension of time to file an answer, and the deadline to do so has not expired. (Id. at 1.) In addition, the magistrate judge noted that “even if Respondent had failed to timely file an answer, Petitioner would not be entitled to default.” (Id., citing Gordon v. Duran, 895 F.2d 610, 612 (9th Cir. 1990); Bleitner v. Welborn, 15 F.3d 652, 653 (7th Cir. 1994).)

24 The Court served the findings and recommendations on all parties, which contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within 21 days after service. (Doc. 11 at 2.) In addition, the Court advised the parties that “failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.” (Id., citing Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 28 1 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).) No objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has expired.

2 According to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo review of the case.

3 | Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the Findings and | Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on March 15, 2022 (Doc. 11), are 6 ADOPTED in full.

7 2. Petitioner’s motion for default (Doc. 9) is DENIED; and 8 3. The matter is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings 9 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 | Dated: _April 11, 2022 Cerin | Tower TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.