Wright v. Hamlet

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/28/11 ORDERING that petitioner's 41 , 42 motions are DENIED as moot. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

GORDON JAMES WRIGHT,

11

Petitioner,

12
13

No. CIV S-09-2543 KJM DAD P

vs.
J. HAMLET, Warden,

14

Respondent.

15

ORDER
/

16

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an amended petition for a

17

writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On February 24, 2011, the undersigned

18

issued findings and recommendations, recommending that respondent’s motion to dismiss be

19

granted in part and denied in part. While the findings and recommendations were pending,

20

petitioner filed a “Motion for Court to Acknowledge and Grant Claims” as well as a “Motion for

21

Court to Expedite” its review of this matter. On September 26, 2011, the assigned district judge

22

conducted a de novo review and adopted the February 24, 2011 findings and recommendations in

23

full. The assigned district judge also ordered respondent to file an answer to petitioner’s petition

24

within sixty days, thereby rendering both of petitioner’s motions moot.

25

/////

26

/////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s motions (Doc. Nos. 41

2

& 42) are denied as moot.

3

DATED: September 28, 2011.

4
5
6

DAD:9
wrig2543.moot

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2