(TEMP)(PC) Hicks v. Hamkar, et al, No. 2:2013cv01687 - Document 66 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/6/16 ORDERING that Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 64 ) is granted in part; and plaintiff is granted 45 days from the date of this order in which to file objections to the courts December 3, 2015, findings and recommendations, and to oppose defendants motion to dismiss filed on December 10, 2015.(Dillon, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL HICKS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:13-cv-1687 KJM CKD P (TEMP) v. ORDER BEHROZ HAMKAR et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff has filed a motion for a ninety-day extension of time to file objections to the 17 18 court’s December 3, 2015, findings and recommendations, and to oppose defendants’ motion to 19 dismiss filed on December 10, 2015. Good cause appearing, the court will grant plaintiff’s 20 motion in part and allow him forty-five days to file any objections to the findings and 21 recommendations and to oppose defendants’ motion to dismiss. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 23 1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (Doc. No. 64) is granted in part; and 24 2. Plaintiff is granted forty-five days from the date of this order in which to file objections 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 to the court’s December 3, 2015, findings and recommendations, and to oppose defendants’ 2 motion to dismiss filed on December 10, 2015. 3 Dated: January 6, 2016 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 4 5 6 7 ec/md hick1687.36obj 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.