(PS) Jones v. Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, No. 2:2011cv02799 - Document 48 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: ORDER granting 45 Motion for an extension of time signed by Magistrate Judge Craig M. Kellison on 12/5/12: Defendant may file a response to plaintiff's objections to the court's October 22, 2012, findings and recommendations by December 12, 2012. (Kaminski, H)

Download PDF
(PS) Jones v. Office of Workers' Compensation Programs Doc. 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL R. JONES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. CIV S-11-2799-MCE-CMK vs. ORDER OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMP. PROGRAMS, 15 Defendant. 16 / 17 Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 18 § 522a(g)(1) to remedy alleged violations of the Privacy Act of 1974. Pending before the court 19 is defendant’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. 45) to file responses to plaintiff’s objections 20 to the court’s October 22, 2012, findings and recommendations.1 Good cause appearing therefor, 21 the request is granted. Defendant may file a response to plaintiff’s objections by December 12, 22 2012. 23 /// 24 1 25 26 The docket does not reflect that plaintiff’s objections were filed with the court. According to defendant’s counsel, objections were personally delivered to counsel’s office on November 7, 2012. Plaintiff is advised that, to be considered by the court, objections to findings and recommendations must be filed with the Clerk of the Court in Sacramento, California. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Defendant’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. 45) is granted; and 3 2. Defendant may file a response to plaintiff’s objections to the court’s 4 October 22, 2012, findings and recommendations by December 12, 2012. 5 6 7 8 DATED: December 5, 2012 ______________________________________ CRAIG M. KELLISON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.