Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01499/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01499-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mule Creek State Prison Warden
Respondent
Gregory Wayne Rimpson
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

On January 22, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to deny 

the instant petition. (Doc. 13). Those Findings and Recommendations gave Petitioner twentyone days to file objections. After being granted several extensions of time, Petitioner filed his 

objections on April 7, 2016. (Doc. 16). On May 12, 2016, the District Judge adopted the 

Findings and Recommendations and entered judgment. (Doc. 17). On June 20, 2016, Petitioner

filed a notice of appeal; however, he also filed the instant motions to extend time for “review,” 

and for additional time to respond to the Court’s order adopting the Magistrate Judge’s Findings 

and Recommendations. (Docs. 19; 21). 

When the District Judge adopted the Findings and Recommendations, judgment was 

entered and the case was closed. Moreover, Petitioner has already filed objections to the 

Findings and Recommendations. In addition, Petitioner has filed his notice of appeal; thus, the 

Court lacks jurisdiction to consider his motions. The order adopting the Findings and 

GREGORY WAYNE RIMPSON,

Petitioner,

v.

MULE CREEK STATE PRISON 

WARDEN,

Respondent.

1:15-cv-01499-LJO-JLT (HC)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

TO RESPOND TO COURT’S MAY 12, 

2016 ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS 

AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 21)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE (Doc. 

19)

Case 1:15-cv-01499-LJO-JLT Document 26 Filed 07/11/16 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

Recommendations does not contain a provision for filing objections, unlike the Findings and 

Recommendations themselves. Thus, there is no basis upon which to extend time for Petitioner to 

file anything in this closed case. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. Petitioner’s motion to extend time for “review (Doc. 19), is DENIED; and,

2. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to respond to the order adopting the 

Findings and Recommendations (Doc. 21), is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 8, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01499-LJO-JLT Document 26 Filed 07/11/16 Page 2 of 2