Rimpson v. Mule Creek State Prison Warden
Filing
26
ORDER DENYING Petitioner's 19 Motion for Continuance and DENYING Petitioner's 21 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Court's May 12, 2016 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 07/8/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
GREGORY WAYNE RIMPSON,
12
13
14
15
16
17
1:15-cv-01499-LJO-JLT (HC)
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO RESPOND TO COURT’S MAY 12,
2016 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 21)
Petitioner,
v.
MULE CREEK STATE PRISON
WARDEN,
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE (Doc.
19)
Respondent.
On January 22, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to deny
18
the instant petition. (Doc. 13). Those Findings and Recommendations gave Petitioner twenty-
19
one days to file objections. After being granted several extensions of time, Petitioner filed his
20
objections on April 7, 2016. (Doc. 16). On May 12, 2016, the District Judge adopted the
21
Findings and Recommendations and entered judgment. (Doc. 17). On June 20, 2016, Petitioner
22
filed a notice of appeal; however, he also filed the instant motions to extend time for “review,”
23
and for additional time to respond to the Court’s order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Findings
24
and Recommendations. (Docs. 19; 21).
25
When the District Judge adopted the Findings and Recommendations, judgment was
26
entered and the case was closed. Moreover, Petitioner has already filed objections to the
27
Findings and Recommendations. In addition, Petitioner has filed his notice of appeal; thus, the
28
Court lacks jurisdiction to consider his motions. The order adopting the Findings and
1
1
Recommendations does not contain a provision for filing objections, unlike the Findings and
2
Recommendations themselves. Thus, there is no basis upon which to extend time for Petitioner to
3
file anything in this closed case. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
4
1. Petitioner’s motion to extend time for “review (Doc. 19), is DENIED; and,
5
2. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to respond to the order adopting the
6
Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 21), is DENIED.
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
July 8, 2016
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?