Hardin v. Baughman et al

Filing 47

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 07/21/2021 DENYING 46 Motion for Extension of Time. (Rodriguez, E)

Case 2:17-cv-01340-MCE-AC Document 47 Filed 07/22/21 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LEON HARDIN,

12

No. 2:17-cv-1340 MCE AC P
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER

D. BAUGHMAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections to the May 27, 2021

17
18

Findings and Recommendations. ECF No. 46.
Plaintiff filed objections on June 21, 2021.1 ECF No. 42. Although plaintiff asserts that

19
20

the objections that he previously sent to the court were incomplete because he was afraid of

21

missing the deadline, he fails to explain why he waited three weeks after sending the partial

22

objections to advise the court that his objections were not complete or to seek additional time. In

23

that time, defendants have responded to the objections, ECF No. 43, and the district judge, after

24

conducting a de novo review of the case, has adopted the findings and recommendations, ECF

25

No. 45.

26

1

27
28

Since plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, he is afforded the benefit of the prison mailbox
rule. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing rule that a prisoner’s court
document is deemed filed on the date the prisoner delivered the document to prison officials for
mailing).

Case 2:17-cv-01340-MCE-AC Document 47 Filed 07/22/21 Page 2 of 2
1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time,

2

ECF No. 46, is DENIED.

3

DATED: July 21, 2021

4
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