Brisette v. California Supreme Court et al

Filing 41

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 10/10/16 ORDERING that this document 40 will be placed in the file and DISREGARDED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

PHILLIP BRISETTE,

10

No. 2:16-cv-0208 GEB GGH P

Petitioner,

11

v.

12

ERIC ARNOLD,

13

ORDER

Respondent.

14
This petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied on September 7, 2016 and judgment

15
16

entered accordingly. Petitioner’s filing, entitled “reply to respondent’s objections1 to magistrate

17

judge’s findings and recommendations,” filed on September 8, 2016, does not appear to be one

18

contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules Governing § 2254

19

Cases. Therefore, this document will be placed in the file and disregarded.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated: October 10, 2016
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
GGH:076; bris0208.158

26
27
28

1

In fact, respondent filed a reply to petitioner’s objections, which was considered by the district
judge and which was followed by the instant filing. See ECF Nos. 36, 37, 40.