Opinion
1:15-cv-01499-LJO-JLT (HC)
07-08-2016
GREGORY WAYNE RIMPSON, Petitioner, v. MULE CREEK STATE PRISON WARDEN, Respondent.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COURT'S MAY 12, 2016 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 21) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE (Doc. 19)
On January 22, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to deny the instant petition. (Doc. 13). Those Findings and Recommendations gave Petitioner twenty-one days to file objections. After being granted several extensions of time, Petitioner filed his objections on April 7, 2016. (Doc. 16). On May 12, 2016, the District Judge adopted the Findings and Recommendations and entered judgment. (Doc. 17). On June 20, 2016, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal; however, he also filed the instant motions to extend time for "review," and for additional time to respond to the Court's order adopting the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. (Docs. 19; 21).
When the District Judge adopted the Findings and Recommendations, judgment was entered and the case was closed. Moreover, Petitioner has already filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. In addition, Petitioner has filed his notice of appeal; thus, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider his motions. The order adopting the Findings and Recommendations does not contain a provision for filing objections, unlike the Findings and Recommendations themselves. Thus, there is no basis upon which to extend time for Petitioner to file anything in this closed case. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:
1. Petitioner's motion to extend time for "review (Doc. 19), is DENIED; and,IT IS SO ORDERED.
2. Petitioner's motion for an extension of time to respond to the order adopting the Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 21), is DENIED.
Dated: July 8 , 2016
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE