Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00823/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00823-15/pdf.json

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE L. PITTS right

Plaintiff,

v.

C. DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:12-CV-00823

ORDER

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 

Communication, ECF No. 122.) On September 12, 2014, Magistrate Judge Allison Claire filed 

the Findings and Recommendations granting in part and denying in part a number of motions 

submitted by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 117.) Parties were given twenty-one days to file objections to 

the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 117.) Plaintiff filed objections on October 9, 

2014. (ECF No. 118.) This Court considered those objections and issued an order adopting the 

Findings and Recommendations on November 6, 2014. (ECF No. 121.) On November 10, 2014, 

Plaintiff filed additional objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 122.) 

Plaintiff’s submission of additional objections to the Findings and Recommendations is

Case 2:12-cv-00823-TLN-AC Document 123 Filed 11/20/14 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

2

untimely and Plaintiff fails to seek leave from the Court for its late submission.1 (ECF No. 122.) 

Therefore, the Court is not required to consider these objections. Failure to file objections within 

the specified time may waive the to appeal the District Court‘s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 

1153 (9th Cir. 1991). However, in an abundance of caution, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s 

further objections and finds no cause to vacate its order adopting the Findings and 

Recommendations. For these reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Communication 

seeking reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 

122.)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2014

 

1 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.

Case 2:12-cv-00823-TLN-AC Document 123 Filed 11/20/14 Page 2 of 2