(PC) Joy v. Laszuk et al, No. 1:2016cv01652 - Document 44 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER DENYING 41 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections to Findings and Recommendations signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 1/25/2018. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ERIC DARNELL JOY, Plaintiff, 11 12 13 14 v. Case No. 1:16-cv-01652-LJO-EPG (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS B. LASZUK, et al., Defendants. (ECF No. 41) 15 Plaintiff Eric Darnell Joy is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 16 17 18 19 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 1, 2016, Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1). On December 11, 2017, Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean entered findings and recommendations recommending that all claims and 20 defendants, except for Plaintiff’s claims for unconstitutional conditions of confinement in 21 violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Laszuk, Valdez, and Garcia, be 22 dismissed. (ECF No. 36). Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to the 23 findings and recommendations within fourteen days. On December 28, 2017, Chief District 24 Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill adopted the findings and recommendations in full. (ECF No. 40). 25 On January 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and 26 Recommendations,” in which he requests an extension of time to object to the findings and 27 recommendations. (ECF No. 41). Plaintiff states that he did not receive a copy of the findings 28 and recommendations until December 19, 2017, because his mail was routed through his 1 1 previous institution of confinement. 2 As the findings and recommendations have been adopted in full, the Court declines to 3 extend Plaintiff’s time to file objections. The Court notes that the findings and 4 recommendations are consistent with the Court’s prior order, (ECF No. 13). Plaintiff may 5 6 7 8 continue to proceed on his claims for unconstitutional conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Laszuk, Valdez, and Garcia as set forth in his First Amended Complaint, (ECF No. 12). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time is denied. 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 Dated: January 25, 2018 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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.