Opinion
CASE NO. C09-5734BHS.
January 10, 2011
This matter comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation ("R R") (Dkt. 124) and Plaintiff's ("LLoyd") multiple motions for extension of time to file his objections to the R R (Dkts. 125, 129, 132). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of an extension and the remainder of the file and hereby grants Lloyd's third motion for extension of time for the reasons discussed herein.
On November 8, 2010, the Honorable Karen L. Strombom, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a report and recommendation in this matter. Dkt. 124. On November 30, 2010, Lloyd moved for a one-week extension to file his objections, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1) (enlargement). Dkt. 125. On December 6, 2010, he also filed a second motion for extension of time. Dkt. 132 (requesting an additional week extension). On the same day, Lloyd filed a third motion for extension of time. Dkt. 129 (requesting a 30-day extension due to being transferred to a different facility).
On December 13, 2010, Defendants filed a response in opposition to Lloyd's motion for third extension of time. Dkt. 135.
Because the Court is persuaded that Lloyd's transfer to a separate facility could have caused undue hardship in enabling him to file his objections to the R R, the Court finds good cause to grant an extension as requested in the third motion (Dkt. 125).
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's third motion for extension of time is GRANTED. Plaintiff's other motions (Dkts. 125, 132) are DENIED as moot. Plaintiff may submit his objections no later than February 4, 2011. The Court will consider any such objections filed in accord with the applicable rules.
DATED this 10th day of January, 2011.