Diaz v. Hurley et al
Filing
40
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/14/17 DENYING 38 plaintiff's motion. (Plummer, M)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MIGUEL ENRIQUE DIAZ,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:15-cv-2083 GEB KJN P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
ASSOCIATES WARDEN HURLEY, et
al.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
On November 21, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion for relief under Rule 60(b) of the Federal
19
Rules of Civil Procedure, challenging the November 21, 2017 dismissal of this action. Rule 60(b)
20
provides for relief from a judgment or order. However, on December 12, 2017, the order
21
dismissing this action was vacated, and plaintiff was granted an extension of time in which to file
22
objections to the findings and recommendations. Because the challenged order has been vacated,
23
plaintiff’s motion for relief is moot, and is therefore denied.
24
25
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 38) is denied.
Dated: December 14, 2017
26
27
/diaz2083.den
28
1
]]>
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?
