ORDER

CAROLYN K. DELANEY, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On January 6, 2016, this court granted in part plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file objections to this court's findings and recommendations filed December 3, 2015, and to file an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss filed on December 10, 2015. Plaintiff has filed two motions for reconsideration asking for more time because he recently transferred to Salinas Valley State Prison, has not yet received his property, and is purportedly unable to do anything with respect to this case.

The court will deny plaintiff's motions for reconsideration. As an initial matter, plaintiff still has almost a month to comply with the court's January 6, 2016, order granting him additional time to file his objections and opposition. Moreover, with respect to filing objections, plaintiff is advised that the purpose of filing objections to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations is merely to identify the portions of the findings and recommendations to which objection is made and the basis of the objection. The district judge will conduct a de novo review of the findings and recommendations. The purpose of such objections is not to provide the parties an opportunity to conduct additional research and present new arguments that were not included in the motion heard by the assigned magistrate judge.

Also, with respect to filing an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss, plaintiff appears to address at least some of defendants' arguments in his second motion for reconsideration. For example, plaintiff argues that his complaint does not merely raise negligence or medical malpractice claims. He also argues that defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity. In any event, plaintiff's recent filings indicate that he is in fact capable of working on this case. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, if the deadline for filing his opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss draws near and plaintiff feels he does not have enough time to prepare and serve his opposition, he may file a request for an extension of time to oppose defendants' motion.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motions for reconsideration (Doc. Nos. 67 & 69) are denied.