From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Albonico

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 11, 2022
2:19-cv-1108 MCE AC P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2022)

Opinion

2:19-cv-1108 MCE AC P

10-11-2022

DAVID ARNOLD RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. N. ALBONICO, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff filed a motion for a fourteen-day extension of time to file a response to defendants' objections. Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

Plaintiff characterizes the objections as untimely because he received them more than fourteen days after the findings and recommendations were served. ECF No. 81 at 1. Plaintiff is advised that the timeliness of the objections is based upon when the objections were filed, not on when he received them, and the objections were timely filed.

1. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 81) is GRANTED; and

2. Plaintiff is granted fourteen days from the service of this order to file a response to defendants' objections.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Albonico

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Oct 11, 2022
2:19-cv-1108 MCE AC P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2022)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Albonico

Case Details

Full title:DAVID ARNOLD RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. N. ALBONICO, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Oct 11, 2022

Citations

2:19-cv-1108 MCE AC P (E.D. Cal. Oct. 11, 2022)