Warden

(HC) Fiorito v. Warden

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaApril 16, 20242:23-cv-03054California361 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL FIORITO, No. 2:23-cv-3054 WBS AC P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 WARDEN, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a habeas corpus petition filed 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On February 9, 2024, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the 19 petition. ECF No. 7. On March 18, 2024, petitioner was ordered to file and serve, within twenty- 20 one days, an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the pending motion. ECF No. 8. In the 21 same order, petitioner was informed that failure to file an opposition would result in a 22 recommendation that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant 23 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Id. The twenty-one-day period has now expired, and 24 petitioner has not filed a response to the motion or otherwise responded to the court’s order. 25 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.