Powe v. Biter
Filing
30
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 1/4/2018 RECOMMENDING 25 Motion for Reconsideration should be denied. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Objections due 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Henshaw, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANDRE POWE,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:15-cv-2639 GEB GGH
Petitioner,
v.
MARTIN D BITER,
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
Respondent.
16
17
Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the district judge’s order of dismissal with prejudice of
18
the Petition (ECF No. 23), most probably a Fed.R.Civ.P.52(b) or 59(e) motion, based on the
19
perception that the order of dismissal was issued not on the merits, but because petitioner did not
20
timely file objections.
21
The undersigned need not engage in a discussion of the Rules’ standards, nor must it
22
discuss the background of this case. Simply put, petitioner’s request for reconsideration is based
23
on a misreading of the order of dismissal. The Order, ECF 23, commences with a brief
24
procedural history of the extensions of time for objections, and concludes in a new paragraph:
25
26
27
28
The court has reviewed the file and finds that the findings and recommendations
are supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed February 21, 2017 are adopted in full;
2. Petitioner’s petition is dismissed with prejudice;
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
3. No Certificate of Appealability shall be issued; and
4. The Clerk of the Court shall close this file.
The only findings and recommendations existing at that the time were those on the merits
of the statute of limitations based Motion to Dismiss, and those are the findings and
recommendations adopted after full review. There was no finding that petitioner’s objections
were late. While it is possible that the procedural background recordation on the filing of
objections in the Order gave the misimpression to petitioner that his objections were late, that is
simply a misreading of the Order and its ultimate conclusion.
Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration should be denied.
This findings and recommendation are submitted to the United States District Judge
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within FOURTEEN
days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
shall be served and filed within SEVEN days after service of the objections. The parties are
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 (9th Cir. 1991).
Dated: January 4, 2018
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?