1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ISAAC RIVERA-JIMENEZ, Case No. 1:24-cv-01535 JLT SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISREGARDING PETITIONER’S UNTIMELY OBJECTIONS 13 v. (Doc. 12) 14 WARDEN, FCI MENDOTA, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On February 13, 2025, the magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, 18 recommending the Court dismiss the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim for habeas 19 relief. (Doc. 9.) The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Petitioner and notified 20 him that any objections were due within 21 days. (Id. at 4.) The Court also advised Petitioner the 21 failure to file timely objections may result in the waiver of rights. (Id. at 5, citing Wilkerson v. 22 Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014).) 23 On March 18, 2025, the Court performed a de novo review of the matter, dismissed the 24 petition, and entered judgment. (Docs. 10, 11.) After the Court entered judgment—33 days after 25 the date of service of the Findings and Recommendations—the Court received objections signed 26 and dated March 17, 2025. (Doc. 29 at 2.) Even assuming the objections were submitted to the 27 prison mailing system the same date, the filing is untimely as the objections were dated beyond 28 the deadline ordered by the Court. Petitioner did not seek an extension of time to file objections, enn ne eee IIE II IIE IIE PE! IIE

1 | and he does not explain the delay in any manner. (See generally Doc. 12.) For this reason, 2 || Petitioner’s untimely objections shall be disregarded.! See, e.g., Branch v. Yates,

| 443639, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2011) (disregarding objections filed by a petitioner as untimely 4 | when filed beyond the objection period). Thus, the Court ORDERS: 5 1. Petitioner’s untimely objections to the Findings and Recommendations are 6 DISREGARDED. 7 2. The action SHALL remain closed. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: _ March 21, 2025 : TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 —_ -)lcJddpt]IMT ' Nevertheless, the Court reviewed the objections, and Petitioner does not identify allegations in his 26 || amended petition that support a conclusion he stated a cognizable claim for habeas relief. He has shown no damages resulting from the delayed provision of the report. He was aware of where the phone was found 27 || and whether he knew how or when it was placed there or who placed it there was within his own knowledge regardless of when he received the report. Thus, even were the Court to consider Petitioner’s 28 untimely objections, they are unavailing.