Ricardo M. Thornton v. Diana Lopez, et al.

Opinion

Ricardo M. Thornton, 2:25-cv-02164-JAD-MDC

Plaintiff(s), ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME (ECF NO. 6) AND vs. WITHDRAWING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 5) Diana Lopez, et al., Defendant(s). Pro se plaintiff filed a to Extend Time to Pay Initial Partial Filing Fee (“Motion”). ECF No. 6. I GRANT the Motion. I previously ordered plaintiff to pay his initial partial filing fee in the amount of $32.00 (toward the full $405.00 filing fee) within thirty days. ECF No. 4. Plaintiff failed to pay timely, and I issued a Report and Recommendation to dismiss the action (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff subsequently filed his Motion in which he argues that his conditions of incarceration were the reason he could not pay it on time, and he asks for additional time. ECF No. 6. I find that plaintiff has shown good cause for an extension of time. // Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to Pay Initial Partial Filing Fee (ECF No. 6) is GRANTED: by March 26, 2026, plaintiff shall pay an initial partial filing fee in the amount of $32.00 (toward the full $405.00 filing fee). 2. The remainder of the Court’s prior Order (ECF No. 4) otherwise REMAINS in full force. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to please WITHDRAW AND TERMINATE the Court’s

Report and Recommendation to Dismiss (ECF No. 5). DATED: February 24, 2026. # 3 ae af E Z x ae ff Pn, a fo fA ff ' ff \ Jf ———__—___ Fo —_* L Hon. Maxinf 1ano D. (ou*illier HI United States Magistmite Judge Pursuant to Local Rules IB 3-1 and IB 3-2, a party may object □□□ guders and reports and recommendations issued by the magistrate judge. Objections must be in writing and filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days. LR IB 3-1, 3-2. The Supreme Court has held that the courts of appeal may determine that an appeal has been waived due to the failure to file objections within the specified time. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985). This circuit has also held that (1) failure to file objections within the specified time and (2) failure to properly address and brief the objectionable issues waives the right to appeal the District Court's order and/or appeal factual issues from the order of the District Court. Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th Cir. 1991); Britt v. Simi Valley United

1g || Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Pursuant to LR IA 3-1, plaintiffs must immediately file written notification with the court of any change of address. The notification must include proof of service upon each opposing party’s attorney, or upon the opposing party if the party is unrepresented by counsel. Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action.