Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Wakefield v. Tilton

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 20, 2009

DARRYL WAKEFIELD, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES TILTON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Oliver W. Wanger United States District Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, WITH PREJUDICE (Doc. 23)

Plaintiff Darryl Wakefield ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendant Indermill ("Defendant") for violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

On January 12, 2009, Defendant filed an ex parte motion seeking a forty-five day extension of time to file a response to Plaintiff's complaint. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion on January 15, 2009, and Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration on January 30, 2009. The motion has been deemed submitted. Local Rule 72-303(d).

The Court shall "modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Local Rule 72-303(f). Plaintiff's objection to the order arises from the grant of Defendant's motion without permitting Plaintiff to file his response.

Judges of this court are permitted to exercise their discretion to grant an initial ex parte motion for an extension of time and the Magistrate Judge did so in this case. Local Rule 6-144(c). Plaintiff's motion is without merit and is HEREBY DENIED, with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090220

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.