Blocker v. Soto

Filing 47

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/24/18 ORDERING that the findings and recommendations filed 3/9/17, are ADOPTED in full; Respondent's 10/7/15 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13 ) is GRANTED; this action is DISMISSED as barred by the statute of limitations; and the court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C.§ 2253. CASE CLOSED(Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSHUA BLOCKER,

12

Petitioner,

13
14

No. 2:15-cv-1416 KJM KJN P

v.

ORDER

J. SOTO, Warden,

15

Respondent.

16
Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas

17
18

corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as

19

provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On March 9, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were

20
21

served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings

22

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were timely filed, and

23

the findings and recommendations were adopted in full. (ECF No. 38.) However, on April 6,

24

2017, the undersigned vacated the judgment, and petitioner was granted an extension of time to

25

file objections. Petitioner was cautioned that no further extensions of time would be granted.

26

Despite receiving additional extensions of time, petitioner did not file objections to the findings

27

and recommendations by the November 28, 2017 deadline. Neither has respondent.

28

/////
1

1

The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602

2

F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo.

3

See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed

4

the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

5

the proper analysis.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1. The findings and recommendations filed March 9, 2017, are adopted in full;

8

2. Respondent’s October 7, 2015 motion to dismiss (ECF No. 13) is granted;

9

3. This action is dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations; and

10

4. The court declines to issue the certificate of appealability referenced in 28 U.S.C.

11

§ 2253.

12

DATED: May 24, 2018.

13
14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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