(HC) De La Rocha v. Thompson

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ADAN DE LA ROCHA, No. 2:21-cv-1923 KJM AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS PAUL THOMPSON, 15 Respondent.

17 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On February 4, 2022, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. ECF No. 7. After petitioner failed to respond to the motion, he was given an additional twenty-one days to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending motion and warned that failure to do so would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). ECF No. 8. The twenty-one-day period has now expired, and petitioner has not responded to the motion or otherwise responded to the court’s order.

25 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

27 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the || objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

7 || DATED: May 2, 2022 ~ g Char ALLISON CLAIRE 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1]