Rosenblum v. Ellis, et al

Filing 64

ORDER Vacating 61 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and Denying 63 Motion for Extension of Time signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 08/26/2010. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
(PC) Rosenblum v. Ellis, et al Doc. 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PHILLIP JON ROSENBLUM, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) C/O ELLIS, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) NO. 1:05-cv-01473 -LJO-GSA-PC ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (Docs. 61, 63) Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On July 15, 2010, findings and recommendations were entered, recommending dismissal of this action for Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. The recommendation was based on Plaintiff's failure to file an amended complaint in compliance with an earlier order. On July 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, on which this action now proceeds. On August 20, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. Because Plaintiff has filed a first amended complaint, the Court will vacate the recommendation of dismissal. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file objections is therefore moot. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 2. The July 15, 2010, recommendation of dismissal is vacated. Plaintiff's motion for extension of time filed on August 20, 2010, is denied as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: 6i0kij August 26, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?