Humes v. Sessions

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/4/2020 DENYING plaintiff's 22 motion. Plaintiff is hereby informed that the court will not respond to future filings in this action that are not authorized by the Fed.R.Civ.P or the Fed.R.A.P. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JON HUMES,

12

No. 2:17-cv-2608-TLN-EFB P
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

JEFF SESSIONS,

15

ORDER

Defendant.

16
On December 20, 2019, this civil rights case was dismissed when the district judge

17
18

adopted in full the October 9, 2019 findings and recommendations, which recommended

19

dismissal of this action for failure to state a cognizable claim. ECF Nos. 19, 20. Judgment was

20

duly entered. ECF No, 21.
On December 30, 2019, plaintiff filed a document styled “motion to object to the

21
22

dismissal,” stating that he “did not receive any notice that [he] had 14 days to reply” to the

23

findings and recommendations. ECF No. 22. It seems plaintiff is requesting an extension of the

24

14-day objection period tied to the October 9, 2019 findings and recommendations. Because the

25

objection period expired long ago and the findings and recommendations have already been

26

adopted by the district judge, the court can no longer extend this deadline. Plaintiff’s motion

27

(ECF No. 22) is therefore denied.

28

/////
1

1

Plaintiff is hereby informed that the court will not respond to future filings in this action

2

that are not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal Rules of Appellate

3

Procedure.

4

So ordered.

5

Dated: February 4, 2020.

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