(PC) Hardin v. Dennis ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LEON HARDIN, No. 2:17-cv-1340 MCE AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 D. BAUGHMAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections to the May 27, 2021 18 Findings and Recommendations. ECF No. 46. 19 Plaintiff filed objections on June 21, 2021.1 ECF No. 42. Although plaintiff asserts that 20 the objections that he previously sent to the court were incomplete because he was afraid of 21 missing the deadline, he fails to explain why he waited three weeks after sending the partial 22 objections to advise the court that his objections were not complete or to seek additional time. In 23 that time, defendants have responded to the objections, ECF No. 43, and the district judge, after 24 conducting a de novo review of the case, has adopted the findings and recommendations, ECF 25 No. 45. 26 1 Since plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, he is afforded the benefit of the prison mailbox 27 rule. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988) (establishing rule that a prisoner’s court document is deemed filed on the date the prisoner delivered the document to prison officials for 28 mailing). ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, 2 || ECF No. 46, is DENIED. 3 || DATED: July 21, 2021 ~ 4 _AMtuen—Clone ALLISON CLAIRE 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28