Wichelman et al v. Santa Clara County California et al
Filing
8
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 06/01/11 ORDERING that the 7 Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED; plfs' Objections to the 6 F&Rs are due w/i 30 days. (Benson, A.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
KARL WICHELMAN, et al.,
11
Plaintiffs,
12
13
No. CIV S-10-2125 KJM DAD PS
vs.
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
CALIFORNIA, et al.,
ORDER
14
Defendants.
15
/
16
Plaintiffs, who are proceeding pro se in this action, have filed a document with the
17
court titled “Plaintiff’s [sic] Notification of Object [sic] to Order of Reassignment of Removal
18
form [sic] the Eastern District (Sacramento) to the Northern District (San Jose); Request for
19
Extension of Time to Make Formal Objections.” The court has not issued an order reassigning
20
or removing this action to another district. In the interests of justice, the court will grant
21
plaintiffs’ request for an extension of time to file their objections.
22
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
23
1. Plaintiffs’ May 24, 2011 motion for extension of time to file objections (Doc.
24
No. 7) is granted; and
25
/////
26
/////
1
1
2. Plaintiffs’ objections to the findings and recommendations filed by the
2
undersigned on May 10, 2011 (Doc. No. 6) shall be filed within 30 days from the date this order
3
is signed; no further extension of time will be granted for this purpose.
4
DATED: June 1, 2011.
5
6
7
8
DAD:kw
Ddad1\orders.pro se\wichelman2125.ord.eot.objs
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?