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
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?