(PS) Bradley v. Miller et al, No. 2:2017cv01834 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/5/2018 ORDERING that plaintiff's tardy 14 objections to the already-adopted findings and recommendations are OVERRULED as untimely. Plaintiff's 18 Motion to Proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED AS MOOT, because plaintiff has already been granted in forma pauperis status on 10/27/2017, which continues automatically on appeal. No further motions will be entertained in this already-closed case. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE BRADLEY, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:17-cv-1834-MCE-KJN PS ORDER v. JEFFREY MILLER, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 On December 6, 2017, the assigned district judge adopted the undersigned’s findings and 19 recommendations, and dismissed the case with prejudice. (ECF No. 12.) Thereafter, on 20 December 13, 2017, plaintiff filed tardy objections to the already-adopted findings and 21 recommendations. (ECF No. 14.) Subsequently, on January 3, 2018, plaintiff also filed a notice 22 of appeal accompanied by a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. (ECF Nos. 17, 18.) 23 Plaintiff’s tardy objections to the already-adopted findings and recommendations are 24 OVERRULED as untimely. Plaintiff was provided with an opportunity to file objections to the 25 findings and recommendations within a specified period of time, and in fact submitted timely 26 objections on November 15, 2017 (ECF No. 9), which were considered by the district judge. 27 (ECF No. 12.) 28 Furthermore, plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED AS 1 1 MOOT, because plaintiff has already been granted in forma pauperis status on October 27, 2017 2 (ECF No. 6), which continues automatically on appeal. 3 No further motions will be entertained in this already-closed case. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 This order resolves ECF Nos. 14 and 18. 6 Dated: January 5, 2018 7 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.