Carter v. Dawson et al
Filing
109
ORDER Addressing Plaintiff's 108 Objection and Denying it to the Extent it is Construed as Motion for Reconsideration; ORDER Granting Defendants' 106 Motion for Modification of the Scheduling Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 06/13/2011. Dispositive Motions filed by 7/18/2011. (Flores, E)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
LON CARTER,
10
11
12
CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01325-OWW-SMS
Plaintiff,
ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTION AND DENYING IT TO THE
EXTENT IT IS CONSTRUED AS MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
v.
NICK DAWSON, et al.,
(ECF No. 108)
13
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR MODIFICATION OF THE SCHEDULING
ORDER
14
15
(ECF No. 106)
16
THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE
17
/
18
19
Plaintiff Lon Carter is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant
20
to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 10, 2011, an order issued denying Plaintiff’s motions to compel. On
21
March 27, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for modification of the scheduling order. (ECF No. 106.)
22
Plaintiff filed objections to the order denying his motions to compel on June 7, 2011. (ECF No.
23
108.) An objection to the Court’s final orders is not a recognized response.
24
To the extent that the opposition is construed to be a motion for reconsideration, it is without
25
merit. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) governs the reconsideration of final orders of the
26
district court. The Rule permits a district court to relieve a party from a final order or judgment on
27
grounds of: “(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; (3) fraud . . . of an adverse
28
party, . . . or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ.
1
1
P. 60(b). Plaintiff’s opposition is devoid of any ground entitling Plaintiff to reconsideration of the
2
Court’s order and is denied.
3
Defendant seeks leave to file a dispositive motion on the grounds that, due to the number and
4
complexity of Plaintiff’s motions to compel, it was determined that they should be decided prior to
5
the filing of a dispositive motion. “A scheduling order shall not be modified except upon a showing
6
of good cause” and by leave of court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b).
7
Here, Plaintiff filed multiple motions to compel, which were not decided until May 10, 2011.
8
Defendants filed the motion to modify the scheduling order on May 27, 2011. The Court finds good
9
cause to grant Defendants’ motion.
10
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
11
1.
Plaintiff’s objections to the order denying the motions to compel, filed June 7, 2011,
12
is HEREBY DENIED to the extent that it is construed as a motion for
13
reconsideration;
14
2.
Defendants’ motion for modification of the scheduling order is GRANTED; and
15
3.
Defendants are granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file
16
dispositive motions.
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
Dated:
icido3
June 13, 2011
/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
