Dennis

(PC) Hardin v. Dennis

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 22, 20212:17-cv-01340California283 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LEON HARDIN, No. 2:17-cv-1340 MCE AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER D. BAUGHMAN, et al., Defendants. 16 Plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension of time to file objections to the May 27, 2021 Findings and Recommendations. ECF No. 46. Plaintiff filed objections on June 21, 2021. ECF No. 42. Although plaintiff asserts that the objections that he previously sent to the court were incomplete because he was afraid of missing the deadline, he fails to explain why he waited three weeks after sending the partial objections to advise the court that his objections were not complete or to seek additional time. In that time, defendants have responded to the objections, ECF No. 43, and the district judge, after conducting a de novo review of the case, has adopted the findings and recommendations, ECF No. 45. 26 Since plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, he is afforded the benefit of the prison mailbox rule. …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.