(HC) Rimpson v. Mule Creek State Prison Warden, No. 1:2015cv01499 - Document 26 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER DENYING Petitioner's 19 Motion for Continuance and DENYING Petitioner's 21 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Court's May 12, 2016 Order Adopting Findings and Recommendations, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 07/8/2016. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GREGORY WAYNE RIMPSON, 12 13 14 15 16 17 1:15-cv-01499-LJO-JLT (HC) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO COURT’S MAY 12, 2016 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 21) Petitioner, v. MULE CREEK STATE PRISON WARDEN, ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE (Doc. 19) Respondent. On January 22, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to deny 18 the instant petition. (Doc. 13). Those Findings and Recommendations gave Petitioner twenty- 19 one days to file objections. After being granted several extensions of time, Petitioner filed his 20 objections on April 7, 2016. (Doc. 16). On May 12, 2016, the District Judge adopted the 21 Findings and Recommendations and entered judgment. (Doc. 17). On June 20, 2016, Petitioner 22 filed a notice of appeal; however, he also filed the instant motions to extend time for “review,” 23 and for additional time to respond to the Court’s order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Findings 24 and Recommendations. (Docs. 19; 21). 25 When the District Judge adopted the Findings and Recommendations, judgment was 26 entered and the case was closed. Moreover, Petitioner has already filed objections to the 27 Findings and Recommendations. In addition, Petitioner has filed his notice of appeal; thus, the 28 Court lacks jurisdiction to consider his motions. The order adopting the Findings and 1 1 Recommendations does not contain a provision for filing objections, unlike the Findings and 2 Recommendations themselves. Thus, there is no basis upon which to extend time for Petitioner to 3 file anything in this closed case. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 4 1. Petitioner’s motion to extend time for “review (Doc. 19), is DENIED; and, 5 2. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to respond to the order adopting the 6 Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 21), is DENIED. 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 8, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.