ORDER REINSTATING AUGUST 17, 2017 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(Docs. 83, 87, 92, 94, 95)

21-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE.

JENNIFER L. THURSTON, Magistrate Judge.

On May 30, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment contending that Plaintiff violated 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a) because he failed to exhaust the available administrative remedies prior to filing this action. (Doc. 83.) Despite lapse of more than a month beyond the allowed time, Plaintiff filed neither an opposition nor a statement of opposition to Defendants' motion. Thus, on August 17, 2017, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to grant Defendants' motion. (Doc. 87.)

On August 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking a 60-day extension of time to file an opposition to Defendants' motion. (Doc. 88.) On September 11, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint counsel as well as a motion to rescind the F&R or stay the action and a motion to allow him to file an opposition to Defendants' motion. (Docs. 90, 91.) In both his motion for an extension of time and to rescind the F&R, Plaintiff asserted that he gave Defendants' motion and exhibit A to another inmate who was going to help Plaintiff prepare an opposition. (Docs. 88, 91.) However, the other inmates' folder, which contained Plaintiff's copy of the motion and exhibit A, was stolen. Plaintiff attempted to gain access to his three boxes of legal materials to no avail and had difficulties with mailing correspondence out of CSP. The Court found good cause to vacate the F&R and granted Plaintiff a 60-day extension of time to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition. (Doc. 92.) When Plaintiff did not file either within the time allowed, the F&R was reinstated. (Doc. 94.) However, Plaintiff again filed a motion requesting a 60-day extension of time because a major lockdown occurred at his facility in October and all inmates' property had been confiscated and was being searched. (Doc. 93.) Though Plaintiff requested his legal property, he had not yet received it and correctional staff was only able to tell him that he would receive his property after it has been searched and that "it may take awhile." (Id., p. 4.)

Thus, on December 7, 2017, the Court vacated the Findings and Recommendations to grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file an opposition or statement of non-opposition. The Court warned Plaintiff that "no further extensions of time will be granted. He must oppose the motion or file a statement of non-opposition within 60 days or the Court will presume that he does not wish to be heard on the matter." (Doc. 95 (emphasis in original).) More than 60 days from the date of service of that order have lapsed without Plaintiff filing an opposition or statement of non-opposition to Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Accordingly, the Findings and Recommendations to grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment which issued on August 17, 2017, (Doc. 87), are REINSTATED.

The August 17, 2017 Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 21 days after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations."

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson, 772 F.3d at 838-39 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.