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