(PC) Mazon v. Radu

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FERNANDO MAZON, No. 2:25-cv-0554 TLN CKD P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RADU, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Fernando Mazon’s (“Plaintiff”) motion 18 for an extension of time to file objections. (ECF No. 12.) For the reasons set forth below, the 19 Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion. 20 On May 13, 2025, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to 21 dismiss this action without prejudice because Plaintiff had not filed an amended complaint as 22 directed. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff was given fourteen days after being served with these findings 23 and recommendations to object. (Id.) On June 18, because no objections had been received, this 24 Court adopted the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 10.) Judgment was entered that 25 same day. (ECF No. 11.) 26 On June 30, 2025, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking an opportunity to file 27 objections. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff states the magistrate judge’s May 13, 2025, order was not 28 placed in his hands until June 12, 2025. (Id.) Plaintiff argues his failure to file objections were 1 | for reasons beyond his control and requests the Court to allow him to file his objections. Plaintiff 2 | further states a desire to proceed with this action. (/d. at 1-2.) Under these circumstances, the 3 | Court finds it appropriate to set aside the judgment and allow Plaintiff an extension to file his 4 | objections to the findings and recommendations. See, e.g., Allen v. Delacruz, No. 1:22-CV- 5 | 00633-JLT-HBK, 2022 WL 21816840, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2022) (similarly setting aside 6 | judgment where due to circumstances outside his control, Plaintiff was unable to file timely 7 | objections). 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The Court’s prior order (ECF No. 10), and the judgment entered in this action on 10 June 18, 2025, (ECF No. 11) are VACATED. 11 2. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file objections to the magistrate judge’s May 12 13, 2025, findings and recommendations, (ECF No. 12), is GRANTED. 13 3. Plaintiff's objections must be filed within 30 days after being served with this order. 14 | Date: July 15, 2025 15 16 7, 17 18 TROY L. NUNLEY CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28