Opinion
ORDER
CRAIG M. KELLISON, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are: (1) plaintiff's motion for clarification (Doc. 42); and (2) plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (Doc. 43).
In his motion for clarification, plaintiff seeks clarification of the court's August 22, 2013, order directing that a District Judge be assigned to this action. Specifically, plaintiff questions why, despite the case having been assigned to a District Judge, the Magistrate Judge nonetheless issued findings and recommendations in the case. Plaintiff is advised that notwithstanding the assignment of a District Judge, the matter remains referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(17).
Turning to plaintiff's request for an extension of time, plaintiff seeks additional time to file objections to the court's August 28, 2013, findings and recommendations. Plaintiff cites limited law library access. The court finds that plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for an extension of time. Specifically, he does not say how he is limited in law library access time, or why. Further, regardless of whether plaintiff has access to the law library, the findings and recommendations address a motion for summary judgment. The law cited in the findings and recommendations is not complicated, nor are the issues involved. The question is whether plaintiff has evidence which creates a genuine dispute of material fact. Either plaintiff has the evidence or he does not. Plaintiff does not require law library access time to supply the court with such evidence.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's motion for clarification (Doc. 42) is granted insofar as the court's prior order is clarified herein; and
2. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (Doc. 43) is denied.