Polk v. Pittman et al

Filing 91

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Objections To Screening Order Dismissing Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 85 ), signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/31/2015. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

) 1:11-cv-00728-AWI- BAM (PC)
)
Plaintiff,
) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
) OBJECTIONS TO SCREENING ORDER
v.
) DISMISSING THIRD AMENDED
) COMPLAINT
PITTMAN, et al.,
) (ECF No. 85)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
______________________________________________________________________________
SUSAN MAE POLK,

18

Plaintiff Susan Mae Polk (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

19
rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge
20

screened Plaintiff’s third amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and determined

21
that it failed to comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 18. The Magistrate Judge
22

dismissed Plaintiff’s third amended complaint with leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No.

23
83.)
24
On January 22, 2015, Plaintiff requested an extension of time to March 26, 2015, to file
25
her amended complaint. (ECF No. 84.) On the same date, Plaintiff filed objections to the
26

Magistrate Judge’s screening order dismissing the third amended complaint with leave to amend.

27
(ECF No. 85.)
28
1

1

Pursuant to Local Rule 303(b), a ruling by a Magistrate Judge is final within 14 days of

2

service of the order. See Local Rule 303(b). Similarly, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a)

3

provides that a party may file objections to a Magistrate Judge’s orders within 14 days. See Fed.

4

R. Civ. P. 72(a). Here, Plaintiff filed the instant objections more than thirty days after service of

5

the Magistrate Judge’s screening order. Plaintiff’s objections are untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

6

72; Local Rule 303. Because the objections are untimely, they will be denied. See id.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objections are DENIED.

8
9
10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 31, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
2