Parthemore v. Kissel, et al

Filing 52

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/2/2015 DEEMING 51 Objections to Findings and Recommendations filed on 3/24/2015; CONFIRMING 50 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

IRA DON PARTHEMORE,

12

No. 2:13-cv-00819 KJM AC P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

B. KISSEL et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

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

17
18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided

19

by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On March 6, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were

20
21

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

22

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 49. Neither party timely

23

filed objections to the findings and recommendations. On March 31, 2015, the court adopted the

24

findings and recommendations in full. ECF No. 50. On the same day, objections from plaintiff

25

were received in the court; the objections were entered on the docket on April 1, 2015. ECF No.

26

50. The objections are deemed filed March 24, 2015. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988).

27

Plaintiff’s objections were not considered by the court prior to entry of the March 31, 2015 order.

28

/////
1

1

Under the deadline set in the findings and recommendations, objections were due March

2

20, 2015. Plaintiff’s objections are therefore untimely. Moreover, the objections consist only of

3

a statement that plaintiff “disagrees with the Court’s granting of summary judgment for

4

Defendants Kissel, Thomas, Costa, Sherrard, Heinschel, Reaves, Toor, Malakkla, Virk, and Neal

5

and Defendant Soltanian on the grounds of his failure to grant a mednical [sic] hold for Plaintiff.

6

Plaintiff submits on the previous record . . . “ ECF No. 51. These summary objections do not

7

present any grounds which would require reconsideration of the court’s March 31, 2015 order

8

adopting in full the March 6, 2015 findings and recommendations.

9

Accordingly, good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the court’s March

10

31, 2015 order is confirmed.

11

DATED: April 2, 2015.

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2