Norwood v Nanganama, et al.,

Filing 80

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 7/11/12 ORDERING that this matter is REMANDED to the Magistrate Judge to determine whether defendant's proposed Reply should be late-filed and considered as part of the summary judgment motion. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

GREGORY NORWOOD,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14
15
16

No. CIV S-09-2929 LKK GGH P

vs.
NAGANAMA, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

17

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

18

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

19

On April 19, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

20

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

21

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff

22

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

23

As part of his Objections, defendant has submitted a “Request for FRCP 60(b)(1)

24

Relief,” seeking permission to file a late Reply in his underlying motion for summary judgment.

25

Defendant asserts “excusable neglect” in failing to file the Reply before the Magistrate in the

26

first place. Plaintiff opposes defendant’s request for relief.
1

1

This matter is therefore REMANDED to the Magistrate Judge to determine

2

whether defendant’s proposed Reply should be late-filed and considered as part of the summary

3

judgment motion.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED: July 11, 2012.

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