(HC) Ramirez v. Kovranvic

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ISRAEL MALDONADO RAMIREZ, No. 1:23-cv-00268-JLT-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION 13 v. [21-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE] KOVRANVIC, Respondent.

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. He filed the instant petition on February 7, 2023. After conducting a preliminary review of the petition, the Court determined it could not ascertain Petitioner’s claims because the petition did not make sense. Petitioner was granted thirty (30) days leave to file an amended petition. Over thirty (30) days have passed and Petitioner has failed to respond to the Court’s order. Petitioner was forewarned that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the action.

RECOMMENDATION Accordingly, the Court hereby RECOMMENDS that the petition be dismissed with prejudice and the action be terminated.

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California.

3 Within twenty-one (21) days after being served with a copy, Petitioner may file written objections with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 6 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 8 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11 Dated: April 11, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE