From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rogers v. Warden

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 1, 2022
1:18-cv-00846-JLT-HBK (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2022)

Opinion

1:18-cv-00846-JLT-HBK

11-01-2022

PHILIP JAMES ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN, ET. AL, Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY MOTION TO LATE-FILE OBJECTIONS (DOC. 76)

On April 11, 2022, the Court adopted the assigned magistrate judge's unopposed findings and recommendations to grant Defendants' motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 73.) A week later, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file objections late. (Doc. 75.) The assigned magistrate judge treated that motion as one for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and on April 25, 2022, denied Plaintiff's motion for leave to file objections. (Doc. 76.) Plaintiff appealed. (Doc. 77.)

The Ninth Circuit remanded the matter, finding that the magistrate judge did not have authority to enter the order under Rule 60. (Docs. 80, 81.) The Ninth Circuit invited this Court to construe the order as findings and recommendations. (Doc. 80 at 2.) The Court did so on July 13, 2022 and set a 30-day deadline for objections to be filed. (Doc. 82.) On August 18, 2022, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file objections to the construed findings and recommendations but denied his motion to stay. (See generally Doc. 84.) The Court mailed the order to Plaintiff at his updated address of record and provided notice that any objections were due within thirty days. (Doc. 84 at 1-2.) Despite the passage of more than two months, Plaintiff has not filed any objections. (See docket.)

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire matter, the Court concludes the construed findings and recommendations (Doc. 76) are supported by the record and proper analysis. The Court agrees with the magistrate judge that there is no basis to set aside the judgment. As the findings and recommendations indicate, the objections Plaintiff is attempting to late-file simply re-hash arguments already considered by the Court. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

(1) The magistrate judge's April 25, 2022 order, construed as findings and recommendations, to deny Plaintiff's request to late-file objections (Doc. 76) are ADOPTED IN FULL.
(2) This case shall remain closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Rogers v. Warden

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 1, 2022
1:18-cv-00846-JLT-HBK (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2022)
Case details for

Rogers v. Warden

Case Details

Full title:PHILIP JAMES ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN, ET. AL, Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 1, 2022

Citations

1:18-cv-00846-JLT-HBK (E.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2022)