From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Evans v. Milam

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 9, 2021
1:20-cv-00070-AWI-HBK (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021)

Opinion

1:20-cv-00070-AWI-HBK

08-09-2021

RICHARD A. EVANS, Plaintiff, v. R. MILAM, FNU LEFFMAN, S. SHERMAN, Defendant.


ORDER NOTING OBJECTIONS FOR THE RECORD

ORDER GRANTING THIRTY-DAY ENLARGEMENT OF TIME (DOC. NO. 133, 134)

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's second motion for an engagement of time to file objections to the Court's July 16, 2021 Findings and Recommendations, filed on August 5, 2021. (Doc. No. 134). Plaintiff additionally filed a pleading titled “Objection to Denial of Motion of 11/26/202: Feds to relieve CDCR, Failure to Protect Population” on August 4, 2021. (Doc. No. 133, “Objection”). The Court will address both pleadings in this Order.

The Court previously granted Plaintiff a fourteen-day enlargement of time to file objections to the July 16 Findings and Recommendations (F&R). (See Doc. No. 132). Plaintiff now seeks an additional thirty-day enlargement of time to file objections to the Court's July 16 F&R because he underwent surgery and limited access to the law library. (Doc. No. 134 at 1). The Court afford Plaintiff an additional thirty days from receipt of this order to file his objections to the July 16 F&R. At expiration of such time, the Court will consider the July 16 F&R ripe for review.

Turning to the Objection, Plaintiff states he wishes to challenge the Order ruling on his motion filed November 26, 2020. (Doc. 133 at 1). The docket reveals no motion filed by Plaintiff on that date. (See docket). To the extent discernable, Plaintiffs Objection appears to challenge the Court's July 21, 2021 Order (Doc. No. 128) denying Plaintiffs request for judicial notice, striking it, and advising Plaintiff that motions not properly styled as a motion or other pleading recognized under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be stricken from the record and or returned to him without further notice. (Id.). Other than stating his objections and complaining how correctional officials are handling the Covid-19 pandemic, the Objection requests no relief. (See generally Doc. No. 133). In contrast, Plaintiff s First Amended Complaint complains about general conditions of Plaintiff s confinement, not conditions related to Covid-19.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs motion for an enlargement of time (Doc. No. 134) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of this order to file his Objections to the Court's July 16, 2021 Findings and Recommendations. At expiration of such time, the July 16 Findings and Recommendations will be considered ripe for review. No. further enlargements of time will be considered.

2. Plaintiffs Objection (Doc. No. 133) is noted.


Summaries of

Evans v. Milam

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Aug 9, 2021
1:20-cv-00070-AWI-HBK (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021)
Case details for

Evans v. Milam

Case Details

Full title:RICHARD A. EVANS, Plaintiff, v. R. MILAM, FNU LEFFMAN, S. SHERMAN…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Aug 9, 2021

Citations

1:20-cv-00070-AWI-HBK (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021)