Bisel v. Fisher et al

Filing 50

ORDER DENYING 41 Motion to Disqualify Respondents;ORDER ADOPTING 44 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER referring this matter back to Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/18/2020. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GREGORY EUGENE BISEL,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 1:17-cv-00013-DAD-SKO (HC)

v.
RAY FISHER, JR., Warden; et al.,

15

Respondents.

16

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PETITIONER’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY
RESPONDENTS FOR VIOLATING A
COURT ORDER
(Doc. No. 44)

17
18
19

Petitioner Gregory Eugene Bisel is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was

21

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule

22

302.

23

On December 2, 2019, petitioner moved to disqualify respondents for violating a court

24

order by failing to return a completed form indicating either consent to or declining to consent to

25

magistrate judge jurisdiction within the time allotted by court order. (Doc. No. 41; see Doc. Nos.

26

34, 36.) On December 23, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

27

recommendations, recommending denial of petitioner’s motion but also cautioning respondents

28

that failure to comply with court deadlines may result in the imposition of sanctions. (Doc. No.
1

1

44.) The findings and recommendations were served on both parties and contained notice that

2

any objections thereto were to be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service of the

3

order. (Id. at 2–3.) No objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed.

4

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a

5

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the

6

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis.

7

Accordingly, the court orders as follows:

8

1.

9

The findings and recommendations issued on December 23, 2019 (Doc. No. 44),
are adopted in full;

10

2.

Petitioner’s motion to disqualify respondents (Doc. No. 41) is denied; and

11

3.

The matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 18, 2020
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2