Benyamini v. Blackburn et al

Filing 109

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 6/20/2017: DENYING 107 Motion for Reconsideration; ADOPTING in FULL 103 Findings and Recommendations; DENYING 88 Motion Declaring Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant and Requiring Security. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT BENYAMINI,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:13-cv-0205 MCE AC P

v.

ORDER

M. BLACKBURN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff, a former state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

17
18

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

19

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On March 23, 2017, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

20
21

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

22

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 103.

23

Defendants filed objections to the findings and recommendations on April 10, 2017. ECF No.

24

104.

25

Plaintiff thereafter moved to strike Defendants’ objections as tardy, which motion the

26

magistrate judge denied. ECF Nos. 105, 106. Plaintiff then filed a motion for reconsideration of

27

that order arguing, inter alia, that the court inadvertently miscalculated Defendants’ deadline for

28

filing objections. ECF No. 7. Defendants filed a response conceding that the objections were
1

1

indeed late, but arguing that Plaintiff was not prejudiced by the tardy filing and therefore

2

requesting that the court consider the objections. ECF No. 108.

3

With regard to Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, the Court finds Defendants have the

4

better argument. Because Defendants objections were not substantially late, the Court finds

5

Plaintiff was not prejudiced by the delay, and the Court has—in its discretion—considered those

6

objections. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order on Plaintiff’s motion to

7

strike, then, is DENIED. Even so, the Court nevertheless finds Defendants’ objections to be

8

unavailing.

9

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

10

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

11

Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

12

analysis.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 107) is DENIED;

15

2. The findings and recommendations filed March 23, 2017 (ECF No. 103), are

16
17
18
19
20

ADOPTED IN FULL; and
2. Defendants’ motion for an order declaring Plaintiff a vexatious litigant and requiring
security (ECF No. 88) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 20, 2017

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2