Benyamini v. Harris et al

Filing 28

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 03/08/11 ordering that plaintiff's objections and motion for a court order 26 , 27 are denied. Any documents filed by plaintiff in the future will be disregarded and no orders will issue in response to future filings. (Plummer, M)

(PC) Benyamini v. Harris et al

Doc. 28

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 vs. J.D. HARRIS, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. On September 30, 2010, this action was closed. Plaintiff has since filed two documents, one styled "objections" and another styled "motion for a court order," claiming that the assigned district judge failed to consider his objections before entering judgment in this case. Plaintiff is in error. He never filed objections to the undersigned's findings and recommendations which recommended dismissal of this action. By way of background, on March 23, 2010, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in this action. (Doc. No. 15.) On April 22, 2010, the court determined that service was appropriate on seven named defendants and ordered plaintiff to complete and return service documents within thirty days. (Doc. No. 17.) In response to the court's order, plaintiff filed a motion for a stay. (Doc. No. 18.) On June 28, 2010, the court denied the motion for a stay but granted plaintiff an additional thirty days to complete and return the service documents. (Doc. 1
Dockets.Justia.com

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ROBERT P. BENYAMINI, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-2462 MCE DAD P

ORDER

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

No. 19.) Plaintiff failed to timely return the service documents. Accordingly, on August 26, 2010, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations, recommending dismissal of this action. (Doc. No. 21.) While those findings and recommendations were pending, plaintiff filed objections to the undersigned's order denying his motion for a stay. (Doc. No. 22.) On September 27, 2010, the assigned district judge considered plaintiff's objections and affirmed the undersigned's order denying plaintiff's motion for a stay. (Doc. No. 23.) Then, on September 30, 2010, the assigned district judge adopted the findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of the action due to plaintiff's failure to timely return the service documents. (Doc. No. 24.) Plaintiff never filed any objections to the findings and recommendations recommending dismissal of this action. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's "objections" and "motion for a court order" are denied. Any documents filed by plaintiff in the future will be disregarded and no orders will issue in response to future filings. DATED: March 8, 2011.

DAD:9:mp beny2462.58

2