Mitchell v. Snowden et al

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 09/14/16 ordering plaintiff's status report 30 , is construed as an objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice 23 , and to any and all findings and fact and conclusions of law on which that recommendation is based. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL J. MITCHELL,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.

No. 2:15-cv-1167 TLN AC P

ORDER

SNOWDEN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff has filed a statement informing the court that he remains assigned to a Mental

18

Health Crisis Bed unit, without access to pen and paper, and has also recently had surgery and

19

therefore cannot write. Plaintiff attaches, presumably for reference, a copy of the Notice of

20

Electronic Filing of this Court’s August 10, 2016 Order (ECF No. 29) granting plaintiff an

21

extension of time to file objections to pending Findings and Recommendations (ECF No. 23).

22

Although the instant filing might reasonably be construed as a request for further extension of

23

time, plaintiff gives no indication of the expected duration of his current circumstances.

24

Accordingly, it is impossible for the court to determine how much of an extension plaintiff may

25

be seeking.

26

Detailed legal arguments are not necessary in order for plaintiff to object to Findings and

27

Recommendations. Moreover, review of the June 10, 2016 Findings and Recommendations in

28

this case (ECF No. 23) demonstrates that the undersigned’s recommendation this action be

1

dismissed with prejudice is mandated by applicable legal principles based on undisputed facts.

2

There are no foreseeable grounds upon which plaintiff can reasonably refute the pertinent facts or

3

dispute the binding legal authority. Nonetheless, in order to protect plaintiff’s rights, secure

4

independent review by the assigned district judge, and preserve issues for appeal, the court will

5

construe plaintiff’s recent submission as an objection to the recommendation that this action be

6

dismissed with prejudice, and to any and all findings and fact and conclusions of law on which

7

that recommendation is based. Plaintiff need take no further action in order for his objections to

8

be considered. The district court will consider the arguments that plaintiff has previously made

9

regarding the statute of limitations, and will review the issue de novo.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

Plaintiff’s status report, ECF No. 30, is construed as an objection to the magistrate judge’s

12

recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice (ECF No. 23), and to any and all

13

findings and fact and conclusions of law on which that recommendation is based.

14

DATED: September 14, 2016

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