Fausto Moreno v. Pollard

C.D. California

Fausto Moreno v. Pollard

DecidedMarch 5, 2021

Docket2:20-cv-07705

StatusUnknown

This text of Fausto Moreno v. Pollard (Fausto Moreno v. Pollard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fausto Moreno v. Pollard, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 FAUSTO MORENO, ) N O . C V 2 0 - 7 7 0 5 - S B ( K S ) 11 Petitioner, )

12 v. ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND ) 13 ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED WARDEN POLLARD, 14 ) STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Respondent. ) 15 _________________________________ ) 16

17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas 19 Corpus (“Petition”), all of the records herein, and the Report and Recommendation of United 20 States Magistrate Judge (“Report”). The time for filing Objections to the Report has passed, 21 and no Objections have been filed with the Court. The Court has also reviewed Petitioner’s 22 request for voluntary dismissal without prejudice (Dkt. No. 13), which he filed during the period 23 for—and in lieu of—Objections, and Respondent’s opposition to that request (Dkt. No. 15). 24 Respondent’s position that it would suffer prejudice if Petitioner was allowed to avoid a 25 dismissal with prejudice at this late stage—after a Report recommending dismissal with 26 prejudice has been issued—is persuasive. See In re Sizzler Restaurants Int’l Inc., 262 B.R. 811, 27 823 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2001) (citing Phillips USA Inc. v. Allflex USA Inc., 77 F.3d 354, 358 28 (10th Cir. 1996)); Maxum Indem. Ins. Co. v. A-1 All Am. Roofing Co., 299 F. App’x 664, 666 1 |} (9th Cir. 2008) (unpublished). Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for a dismissal without 2 || prejudice is DENIED. 3 4 Therefore, having completed its review of briefing and the Report, the Court accepts the 5 || findings and recommendations set forth in the Report. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) 6 || the Petition is DENIED; and (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with 7 || prejudice. 8 DATED: March 5, 2021 (ress. i ~ STANLEY BLUMENFELD, □□□ D UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 FAUSTO MORENO, ) N O . C V 2 0 - 7 7 0 5 - S B ( K S ) 11 Petitioner, )

12 v. ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND ) 13 ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED WARDEN POLLARD, 14 ) STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Respondent. ) 15 _________________________________ ) 16

17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition for Writ of Habeas 19 Corpus (“Petition”), all of the records herein, and the Report and Recommendation of United 20 States Magistrate Judge (“Report”). The time for filing Objections to the Report has passed, 21 and no Objections have been filed with the Court. The Court has also reviewed Petitioner’s 22 request for voluntary dismissal without prejudice (Dkt. No. 13), which he filed during the period 23 for—and in lieu of—Objections, and Respondent’s opposition to that request (Dkt. No. 15). 24 Respondent’s position that it would suffer prejudice if Petitioner was allowed to avoid a 25 dismissal with prejudice at this late stage—after a Report recommending dismissal with 26 prejudice has been issued—is persuasive. See In re Sizzler Restaurants Int’l Inc., 262 B.R. 811, 27 823 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2001) (citing Phillips USA Inc. v. Allflex USA Inc., 77 F.3d 354, 358 28 (10th Cir. 1996)); Maxum Indem. Ins. Co. v. A-1 All Am. Roofing Co., 299 F. App’x 664, 666 1 |} (9th Cir. 2008) (unpublished). Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for a dismissal without 2 || prejudice is DENIED. 3 4 Therefore, having completed its review of briefing and the Report, the Court accepts the 5 || findings and recommendations set forth in the Report. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) 6 || the Petition is DENIED; and (2) Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with 7 || prejudice. 8 DATED: March 5, 2021 (ress. i ~ STANLEY BLUMENFELD, □□□ D UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Fausto Moreno v. Pollard, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fausto-moreno-v-pollard-cacd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack