BUNTIN v. STATE OF FLORIDA
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by FREDERICK D BUNTIN: It is recommended - 1. That this case be Dismissed Without Prejudice for plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the cour t. - 2. That the clerk be directed to close the file. -- Internal deadline for referral to district judge if objections are not filed earlier: 9/16/2009. - R&R flag set. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE MILES DAVIS on August 19, 2009. (cbj)
Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION FREDERICK D. BUNTIN, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This cause is before the court upon referral from the clerk. Petitioner initiated this action on December 15, 2008 by filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1, p. 1). The petition was not accompanied by the filing fee or an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, on January 14, 1009, the court issued an order directing petitioner to either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit a complete application to proceed in forma pauperis within thirty days. (Doc. 3). Petitioner was warned that failure to timely comply with the order may result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action for failure to comply with an order of the court. Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the order, arguing that under Florida law this proceeding is a collateral criminal proceeding not subject to the filing fee requirement. (Doc. 9). The motion was denied on May 14, 2009, and petitioner was again directed that he must pay the filing fee or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. 10). Petitioner was given an extension of time to June 12, 2009 to submit the fee or application, and was warned that failure to do so may result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action for failure to comply with an order of the court. Petitioner did not comply with the order. Case No. 5:08cv374/MCR/MD
Page 2 of 2
Accordingly, on June 26, 2009, the court issued an order directing petitioner to show cause within twenty days why this case should not be dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the court. That deadline has long passed, and petitioner has neither responded nor complied with the May 14, 2009 order. Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED: 1. That this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for plaintiff's failure to comply with an order of the court. 2. That the clerk be directed to close the file. At Pensacola, Florida, this 19th day of August, 2009.
MILES DAVIS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES Any objections to these proposed findings and recommendations must be filed within ten days after being served a copy thereof. Any different deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court's internal use only, and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon all other parties. Failure to object may limit the scope of appellate review of factual findings. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 701 (11th Cir. 1988).
Case No: 5:08cv374/MCR/MD
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?