Grigsby v. Pfeiffer, et al.

Filing 20

ORDER DENYING 19 Motion Seeking Response signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/25/2018. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11 JONATHAN GRIGSBY,

Case No. 1:17-cv-01384-DAD-JLT (PC)

12

ORDER DENYING MOTION SEEKING
RESPONSE

13

Plaintiff,
v.

14 C. PFEIFFER, et al.,
15

(ECF No. 19)

Defendants.

16
17

This case was closed on February 7, 2018, after the previously-assigned magistrate judge

18 recommended that this civil rights action be dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff filing a
19 petition for writ of habeas corpus. Plaintiff sought reconsideration of the dismissal order, and on
20 July 26, 2018, the undersigned recommended that this action be reopened to allow plaintiff to
21 proceed on a single retaliation claim. Following receipt of plaintiff’s August 6, 2018, objections,
22 the Honorable Dale A. Drozd adopted the findings and recommendations in full on August 30,
23 2018, and directed plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 28 days.
24

Pending now is plaintiff’s “Motion Seeking Response to August 6, 2018, F&R.” (ECF

25 No. 19.) A review of this motion reveals that plaintiff is in fact seeking consideration of his
26 August 6, 2018, objections to the findings and recommendations. Those objections, however,
27 have already been considered by Judge Drozd, who found that “Plaintiff presents no new
28 arguments or allegations that provide a legal basis on which to question the magistrate judge’s
1

1 findings and recommendations.” (ECF No. 18 at 2.) Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion seeking
2 response (ECF No. 19) is DENIED.
3 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5

Dated:

September 25, 2018

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2