Glass v. Woodford et al

Filing 97

ORDER ADOPTING 82 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER DENYING 65 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 95 Motion for Extension of Time Nunc Pro Tunc and STRIKING 94 Objections; This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 03/22/2012. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

DONALD GLASS,

10

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00098-AWI-BAM PC
Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

R. FIELDS, et al.,
(ECF Nos. 65, 82)

13
14

Defendants.
/ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
AN EXTENSION OF TIME NUNC PRO TUNC
AND STRIKING OBJECTION

15
(ECF Nos. 94, 95)
16
17
Plaintiff Donald Glass (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
18
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United
19
States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On January 3, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations herein
21
which was served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the
22
Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. On January 31, 2012, the Court
23
granted Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time and Plaintiff was granted fourteen days in which
24
to file objections. On March 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed untimely Objections and a Motion for an
25
Extension of Time Nunc Pro Tunc. (ECF Nos. 94, 95.) On March 9, 2012, Defendants filed an
26
opposition to the motion for an extension of time. Defendants oppose the motion because it is blank.
27
(ECF No. 96.) Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time fails to set forth any information as to
28
1

1

why he failed to timely file the Objections. Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to show good cause,

2

the Motion shall be denied, and Plaintiff’s Objection will be stricken from the record.

3

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a

4

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings

5

and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

6

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

8

Plaintiff’s Motion for an Extension of Time Nunc Pro Tunc, filed March 7, 2012, is
DENIED;

9

2.

Plaintiff’s Objections, filed March 7, 2012, is STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD;

10

3.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 3, 2012, is adopted in full;

11

4.

Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed October 11, 2011, is DENIED;

12
13
14

and
5.

This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated:
0m8i78

March 22, 2012
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2