Robinson v. Kate et al
Filing
112
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 8/16/2017 DENYING without prejudice 111 Motion to Modify the Discovery and Scheduling Order. Plaintiffs motion and evidence will be construed as objections to the findings and recommendations, and considered in tandem with any other objections filed by plaintiff. (Henshaw, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ANDRE JAMAL ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
12
ORDER
v.
13
14
No. 2:11-cv-2555 MCE AC P
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
Defendants.
15
16
17
On August 9, 2017, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations addressing the
18
merits of this action. See ECF No. 110. The parties were accorded fourteen days after service of
19
the findings and recommendations to file objections.
Meanwhile, on August 7, 2017, plaintiff prepared and submitted a “Motion to Modify the
20
21
Discovery and Scheduling Order” premised on the submission of “recently obtained material
22
evidence.” See ECF No. 111. Plaintiff’s motion and evidence will be construed as objections to
23
the findings and recommendations, and considered in tandem with any other objections filed by
24
plaintiff. Consequently, the motion as framed will be denied.
25
////
26
////
27
////
28
////
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s “Motion to Modify the
2
Discovery and Scheduling Order,” ECF No. 111, is denied without prejudice to its consideration in
3
objection to the pending findings and recommendations.
4
DATED: August 16, 2017
5
6
7
8
9
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?