(PC) Henderson v. Lizzaraga

8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CURTIS LEE HENDERSON, SR., No. 2:18-CV-2181-JAM-DMC-P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS JOE LIZZARAGA, et al., 15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. See ECF No. 131.

20 On October 4, 2019, the Court issued a scheduling order for this case. See ECF No. 35. That order directed that dispositive motions be filed within 90 days of the date set for completion of discovery, February 10, 2020. See id. On May 8, 2020, Defendants filed a motion to modify the schedule to allow additional time to file dispositive motions. See ECF No. 52. On June 25, 2020, the Court granted Defendants’ motion nunc pro tunc to June 10, 2020, the date Defendants filed their motion for summary judgment. See id. Since June 10, the Court has ruled on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which was ultimately granted in part and denied in part by the District Judge. See ECF No 108. At no time after June 10, 2020, has Plaintiff sought or obtained further extension of the dispositive motion filing deadline of June 10, 2020.

1 | Plaintiffs current motion for summary judgment, filed on February 11, 2022 — filed eight months | after the dispositive motion filing deadline — is untimely and should be denied as such.

3 Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiffs late-filed | motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 131, be denied.

5 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District | Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections | with the Court. Responses to objections shall be filed within 14 days after service of objections.

9 | Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal. See Martinez v. | Yist, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

12 | Dated: July 22, 2022 Ssvcqo_ 13 DENNIS M. COTA 14 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE