Barber
(PC) Wilkins v. Barber
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KEENAN WILKINS, aka NERRAH No. 2:19-cv-1338 KJN P
BROWN,
12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 DR. CHRISTINE S. BARBER, et al., 15 Defendants. 16
17 18 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On September 28, 2020, plaintiff filed a 19 reply to defendants’ response to plaintiff’s objections to the August 26, 2020 findings and 20 recommendations. However, the findings and recommendations provided for objections and a 21 response to the objections. There was no provision for a reply to the response, and plaintiff did 22 not seek leave of court to file such a reply. (ECF No. 111 at 13.) Moreover, on September 25, 23 2020, the district court adopted the findings and recommendations. Therefore, plaintiff’s reply is 24 disregarded as improperly filed. 25 Plaintiff’s reply was accompanied by a motion to file certain medical records under seal. 26 However, because plaintiff’s reply was improperly filed, no medical records are required. Thus, 27 plaintiff’s motion is denied without…