Opinion
No. CIV S-06-1893 LKK DAD P.
March 13, 2009
ORDER
On January 20, 2009, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations, recommending that defendants' motion for summary judgment be granted. The parties were given fifteen days to file and serve any objections to the findings and recommendations. On February 3, 2009, plaintiff requested an extension of time to file objections. On February 11, 2009, the undersigned granted plaintiff a thirty-day extension of time. The court cautioned plaintiff that the court would grant him one extension of time. Nevertheless, plaintiff has requested a second extension of time to file his objections.
As the court previously advised plaintiff, the purpose of filing objections to a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations is merely to identify the portions of the findings and recommendations to which objection is made and the basis of the objection. The district judge will conduct a de novo review of all portions of the findings and recommendations to which objections are made. The purpose of such objections is not to provide the parties an opportunity to conduct additional research and present new arguments that were not included in the motion heard by the assigned magistrate judge.
In the interests of justice, plaintiff's request for a second extension of time will be granted in part. Plaintiff shall file his objections on or before March 23, 2009. If the plaintiff does not timely file his objections, the undersigned will forward the findings and recommendations to the assigned district judge without his objections. No further extensions of time will be granted for this purpose.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's March 12, 2009 request for an extension of time (Doc. No. 61) is granted in part; and
2. Plaintiff shall file his objections on or before March 23, 2009. Defendants' reply, if any, shall be filed on or before March 27, 2009.