(PC) Pitts v. Davis et al, No. 2:2012cv00823 - Document 123 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 11/18/14 ORDERING that the Court denies Plaintiff's 122 Ex Parte Communication seeking reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations. (Kastilahn, A)

Download PDF
(PC) Pitts v. Davis et al Doc. 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EDDIE L. PITTS right 12 No. 2:12-CV-00823 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 C. DAVIS, et al., 15 16 17 18 ORDER Defendants. This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff Eddie L. Pitts’ (“Plaintiff”) request that this Court reconsider Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 118) to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations (“Findings and Recommendations”) (ECF No. 117). (Plaintiff’s Ex Parte 19 Communication, ECF No. 122.) On September 12, 2014, Magistrate Judge Allison Claire filed 20 the Findings and Recommendations granting in part and denying in part a number of motions 21 submitted by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 117.) Parties were given twenty-one days to file objections to 22 the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 117.) Plaintiff filed objections on October 9, 23 2014. (ECF No. 118.) This Court considered those objections and issued an order adopting the 24 Findings and Recommendations on November 6, 2014. (ECF No. 121.) On November 10, 2014, 25 Plaintiff filed additional objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 122.) 26 Plaintiff’s submission of additional objections to the Findings and Recommendations is 27 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 untimely and Plaintiff fails to seek leave from the Court for its late submission.1 (ECF No. 122.) 2 Therefore, the Court is not required to consider these objections. Failure to file objections within 3 the specified time may waive the to appeal the District Court‘s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 4 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). However, in an abundance of caution, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s 5 further objections and finds no cause to vacate its order adopting the Findings and 6 Recommendations. For these reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Communication 7 seeking reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 8 122.) 9 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 18, 2014 11 12 13 Troy L. Nunley United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 28 Although this document was filed on November 10, 2014, Plaintiff’s proof of service indicates that the document was prepared and submitted on October 14, 2014. In either case, the filing is untimely. 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.