(HC) Thompson v. Spearman ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KANE MICHAEL THOMPSON, No. 2:19-cv-2328 KJM DB P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 M.E. SPEARMAN, WARDEN 15 Respondent. 16 17 By order issued April 2, 2020, petitioner’s request for a sixty-two-day extension of time to 18 file a first amended petition was denied. (ECF No. 16). Instead, petitioner was given thirty days 19 leave to file an amended application. (See id. at 2). The thirty-day period has now expired, and 20 petitioner has not responded to the court’s order. 21 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be DISMISSED without 22 prejudice. See Local Rule 110; Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 23 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 24 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after 25 being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file written objections 26 with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings 27 and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file objections within the specified 28 //// wOAOe 2 LOU VEVOOING NI ta POI OP ee POY eo 1 | time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 2 | (9th Cir. 1991). 3 | Dated: August 20, 2020 6 ORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 | DLB:13 DB/ORDERS/ORDERS.PRISONER. HABEAS/thom2328 .fta.hab 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28