(PC) King v. Cappel

Opinion

ALFRED KING, No. 2:18-cv-0389 KJM AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER R.W. CAPPEL, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff has filed a motion to file a late objection to the undersigned’s Findings and Recommendations issued September 4, 2019. ECF No. 8. This request was filed on October 9, 2019,1 a full two weeks after the September 25, 2019 court-ordered due date for objections to the Findings and Recommendations. Because a judgment and order were issued in this case on October 2, 2019 by the District Court Judge assigned to this action (ECF Nos. 6, 7), this case is now closed. As a result, the undersigned is unable to grant plaintiff’s motion to file a late objection. //// //// 1 The court presumes that plaintiff gave the motion to prison officials on October 9, 2019, the 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, 567 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir 2009). ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs motion to file a late objection to the undersigned’s findings and recommendations (ECF No. 8), is DENIED. DATED: October 24, 2019 ~ ttt0n— ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1]