FRYE v. WARDEN, SAN QUENTIN STATE PRISON, 2:99-cv-0628 KJM CKD. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150302698
Visitors: 17
Filed: Feb. 26, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 26, 2015
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner moves for reconsideration of the January 22, 2015 amended findings and recommendations (ECF No. 658). Specifically, petitioner asks this court to: (1) withdraw the amended findings and recommendations, (2) clarify what was amended, and (3) extend the time for filing objections to the amended findings and recommendations. After considering petitioner's motion, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. Petitioner's
Summary: ORDER CAROLYN K. DELANEY , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner moves for reconsideration of the January 22, 2015 amended findings and recommendations (ECF No. 658). Specifically, petitioner asks this court to: (1) withdraw the amended findings and recommendations, (2) clarify what was amended, and (3) extend the time for filing objections to the amended findings and recommendations. After considering petitioner's motion, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. Petitioner's m..
More
ORDER
CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner moves for reconsideration of the January 22, 2015 amended findings and recommendations (ECF No. 658). Specifically, petitioner asks this court to: (1) withdraw the amended findings and recommendations, (2) clarify what was amended, and (3) extend the time for filing objections to the amended findings and recommendations. After considering petitioner's motion, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 661) is DENIED to the extent petitioner requests withdrawal of the amended findings and recommendations.
2. With respect to petitioner's request for clarification, the undersigned recognizes that the page number references are incorrect and apologizes for any inconvenience this has caused. However, because each amended section was identified, the parties should be able to determine what has been amended. Petitioner's statement that he is unable to determine what amendments were made to section IV.A.3.b. is puzzling. A quick comparison of the original section and the amended section make the amendments readily clear; they appear at pages 61-62 of the amended findings and recommendations.
3. Petitioner's request for an extension of time is GRANTED. Petitioner shall have thirty days from the filed date of this order to file any objections to the amended findings and recommendations. The limitations previously specified to those objections remain.
Source: Leagle
