(PC) King v. Cappel

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 ALFRED KING, No. 2:18-cv-0389 KJM AC P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 R.W. CAPPEL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff has filed a motion to file a late objection to the undersigned’s Findings and 18 Recommendations issued September 4, 2019. ECF No. 8. This request was filed on October 9, 19 2019,1 a full two weeks after the September 25, 2019 court-ordered due date for objections to the 20 Findings and Recommendations. 21 Because a judgment and order were issued in this case on October 2, 2019 by the District 22 Court Judge assigned to this action (ECF Nos. 6, 7), this case is now closed. As a result, the 23 undersigned is unable to grant plaintiff’s motion to file a late objection. 24 //// 25 //// 26 1 The court presumes that plaintiff gave the motion to prison officials on October 9, 2019, the 27 day he signed it. See ECF No. 1. An incarcerated prisoner’s pro se filing is deemed filed at the moment of delivery to prison officials. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988); Douglas v. Noelle, 28 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir 2009). ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to file a late objection to 2 | the undersigned’s findings and recommendations (ECF No. 8), is DENIED. 3 || DATED: October 24, 2019 ~ 4 ttt0n— ALLISON CLAIRE 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28