Thomas v. Kauer, 2:16-cv-2784-JAM-EFB P. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190312787
Visitors: 17
Filed: Mar. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. On March 6, 2019, he requested a second extension of time (60 days) to file his objections to the January 30, 2019 findings and recommendations. Plaintiff requests the additional time so he can "secure the appropriate documentation to prove (establish) a foundation of fact." ECF No. 57 at 2. The purpose of the objection period is not to brief th
Summary: ORDER EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. 1983. On March 6, 2019, he requested a second extension of time (60 days) to file his objections to the January 30, 2019 findings and recommendations. Plaintiff requests the additional time so he can "secure the appropriate documentation to prove (establish) a foundation of fact." ECF No. 57 at 2. The purpose of the objection period is not to brief the..
More
ORDER
EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 6, 2019, he requested a second extension of time (60 days) to file his objections to the January 30, 2019 findings and recommendations. Plaintiff requests the additional time so he can "secure the appropriate documentation to prove (establish) a foundation of fact." ECF No. 57 at 2.
The purpose of the objection period is not to brief the merits of the motion in the first instance. Plaintiff has already had the opportunity to brief and oppose defendants' motion and has had ample time to research the relevant legal and evidentiary issues. The instant request does not demonstrate why a brief statement of objections cannot be timely filed notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence. Accordingly, absent any showing that a 60-day extension of time is legitimately necessary for plaintiff to file his objections, the court will not unduly delay the progress of this case.
For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's request for an extension of time (ECF No. 57) to file objections to the January 30, 2019 findings and recommendations is granted only to the extent that he must file and serve any objections no later than March 22, 2019.
Source: Leagle
