(PC) Smith v. Aubuchon

Opinion

GRANVILLE WILLIAM SMITH, IV, No. 2:14-CV-0775-KJM-DMC-P Plaintiff, v. ORDER B. AUBUCHON, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Eastern District of California local rules. On March 31, 2020, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within the time specified therein. Through four separate orders, the court has granted plaintiff 120 additional days to file objections. See ECF Nos. 139, 141, 144, and 147. However, plaintiff did not file timely objections to the findings and recommendations. He has belatedly filed two sets of documents he styles as objections, including one he is “submitting under duress.” ECF Nos. 152, 154; see also ECF No. 153 (confirming untimeliness in denying further extension request). The court disregards both sets of objections under these circumstances. See Turner v. ///// Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir.1998) (holding failure to timely object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation waives all objections to magistrate judge’s findings of fact). The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The findings and recommendations filed March 31, 2020, are adopted in full; 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 129) is granted; and 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment and close this file. DATED: October 5, 2020.