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.

James L. Jefferson v. J.R. Weaver

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 18, 2012

JAMES L. JEFFERSON
PLAINTIFF,
v.
J.R. WEAVER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 23, 2012, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations that defendants' unopposed motion for summary judgment be granted. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations (Doc. 44).

However, instead of objections addressing the merits of the findings and recommendations, plaintiff is asking for additional time. To the extent plaintiff needs additional time to file his objections, that request is granted. To the extent plaintiff is requesting additional time to complete his discovery, that request is denied. Discovery is long since over in this action. As the undersigned explained in the findings and recommendations, in order for the court to review the admissions which have been deemed admitted, plaintiff would be required to file a specific motion to do so, and to show good cause for failing to respond to the requests for admissions as well as good cause for not requesting assistance from the court in a timely manner. The issue of the admissions was resolved in September 2011. Due to plaintiff's failure to respond to the requests for admissions, and his failure to oppose the motion to compel, the requests for admissions were deemed admitted. While plaintiff indicates he is in administrative segregation and has had issues with receiving mail, he fails to address the admissions and fails to provide good cause for his lack of response or action. Administrative segregation, in and of itself, does not excuse plaintiff's complete lack of response and action. While additional time may be needed due to his current confinement, plaintiff is still required to act in order to prosecute this action. Additionally, plaintiff fails to provide any specifics as to his difficulties in receiving mail.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request for additional time to file objections to the findings and recommendations is granted. Objections to the findings and recommendation may be filed within 30 days of the date of this order.

20120618

© 1992-2012 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.