IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 29, 2012
RANDY REAL, PLAINTIFF,
JAMES WALKER, WARDEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge
On March 30, 2012, the district judge, after reviewing plaintiff's objections, adopted the undersigned's findings and recommendations, thereby granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss filed April 22, 2011. (See Dkt. No. 47.) Pursuant to that order, plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was dismissed with leave to file and serve, within 30 days, a Second Amended Complaint limited to the defendants and claims found cognizable by the court.*fn1
Thereafter, plaintiff sought an extension of time within which to file further objections (Dkt. No. 48), which the undersigned denied without prejudice to plaintiff filing a motion for relief from the district judge's order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) (Dkt. No. 49). Nevertheless, plaintiff thereafter filed objections to the findings and recommendations (Dkt. No. 50), which defendants opposed (Dkt. No. 51); then plaintiff filed a motion for relief from the district judge's order (Dkt. No. 52). Plaintiff has now filed a letter (Dkt. No. 54), requesting that his motion for relief from the district judge's order (Dkt. No. 52) be disregarded, and that plaintiff be permitted to proceed with the filing of his Second Amended Complaint (referenced in Dkt. No. 53).
For good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's request (Dkt. No. 54) that his motion for relief from the district judge's order (Dkt. No. 52) be disregarded, is granted; the Clerk of Court shall note that the subject motion (Dkt. No. 52) is withdrawn;
2. Plaintiff shall file and serve his Second Amended Complaint within twenty-one (21) days after service of this order; and
3. Failure of plaintiff to timely file and serve a Second Amended Complaint will result in the dismissal of this action.