Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00973-13/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRANDON MEEKS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv973-GPC(BGS)

ORDER OVERRULING

PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS

[Dkt. Nos. 155.]

vs.

A. NUNEZ, et al.,

Defendant.

On June 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed Objections to several aspects of this case. (Dkt.

No. 155.) First, he objects to the second amended scheduling order regulating

discovery and other pre-trial proceedingsfiled on May 19, 2016 because it erroneously

states that a case management conference was held on October 30, 2014 when in fact

one was not held on that date. (Dkt. No. 152 at 1.) This argument is without merit. 

It appears that there was a typo and the case management conference was held on

October 29, 2015. (Dkt. No. 111.) Moreover, there is no prejudice or harm to Plaintiff

based on the typo. 

Second, Plaintiff complains that around May 8, 2016, he filed an objection and

a notice of appeal to this Court’s Order Overruling Objections to Magistrate Judge’s

Discovery Ruling and Denying Defendants’ Motion for an Order Imposing

Terminating Sanctions, (Dkt. No. 145), and the Court did not consider those objections

in the Court’s Order Summarily Denying Defendants’ Motion for an Order Imposing

Terminating Sanctions against Plaintiff filed on May 19, 2016, (Dkt. No. 151). As an

- 1 - [13cv973-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 156 Filed 06/15/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

initial matter, the docket does not reflect any objection or notice of appeal filed after

the Court’s order entered on May 4, 2016. Second, there is no procedure for Plaintiff 1

to file objections to rulings of the undersigned judge, and Plaintiff provides no legal

authority supporting his assertion.

Based on the reasoning below, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objections.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 15, 2016

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

Plaintiff also contends that he has not received a ruling on his Objections filed 1

around May 8, 2016 and not received a conformed copy of his notice of appeal from

the Court. However, as noted above, the Court’s docket does not reflect any

Objections or notice of appeal filed in this Court around May 8, 2016. Therefore, his

argument is without merit. 

- 2 - [13cv973-GPC(BGS)]

Case 3:13-cv-00973-GPC-BGS Document 156 Filed 06/15/16 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 2