Thomas v. Kaul et al.

Filing 58

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 3/11/2019 GRANTING IN PART 57 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff's objections must be filed and served no later than 3/22/2019. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CLIFFORD BRENT THOMAS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-2784-JAM-EFB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

K. KAUER, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. On March 6, 2019, he requested a second extension of time (60 days) to file his

19

objections to the January 30, 2019 findings and recommendations. Plaintiff requests the

20

additional time so he can “secure the appropriate documentation to prove (establish) a foundation

21

of fact.” ECF No. 57 at 2.

22

The purpose of the objection period is not to brief the merits of the motion in the first

23

instance. Plaintiff has already had the opportunity to brief and oppose defendants’ motion and

24

has had ample time to research the relevant legal and evidentiary issues. The instant request does

25

not demonstrate why a brief statement of objections cannot be timely filed notwithstanding the

26

exercise of due diligence. Accordingly, absent any showing that a 60-day extension of time is

27

legitimately necessary for plaintiff to file his objections, the court will not unduly delay the

28

progress of this case.

1

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff’s request for an extension of time (ECF No. 57) to file

2

objections to the January 30, 2019 findings and recommendations is granted only to the extent

3

that he must file and serve any objections no later than March 22, 2019.

4

Dated: March 11, 2019.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2