Opinion
04 Civ. 1595 (LAK).
January 24, 2005
ORDER
In a report and recommendation dated November 18, 2004, Magistrate Judge Dolinger recommended, inter alia, that the complaint in this action be dismissed and that plaintiff be enjoined from certain further litigation activities. Plaintiff moved for an extension of time within which to object to the report and recommendation. Although the Court saw no need for an extension, it granted the application to the extent of enlarging plaintiff's time to object to and including December 23, 2004. (Docket item 46) On January 10, 2005, no objections having been docketed, the Court adopted the report and recommendation. Final judgment was entered on January 21, 2005.
The Pro Se Office now has forward to the undersigned a package of papers, including objections to Judge Dolinger's report, received from the plaintiff. To the extent that the papers are dated, they are dated January 7, 2005. To the extent they bear proofs of service, they claim service by mail on January 7, 2005. The envelope in which they arrive shows dispatch on January 8 and receipt by the Clerk's Office on January 9, 2005. None of these papers was in the hands of the undersigned on January 10, 2005 when the Court adopted the report and recommendation. The Clerk's Office has sought instruction from the Court as to whether the papers should be accepted for filing in view of the fact that none bears an original signature, and the signature pages appear to bear rubber stamp signature facsimiles.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(a) provides in relevant part:
"Every pleading, written motion, and other paper shall be signed by at least one attorney of record . . ., or, if the party is not represented by an attorney, shall be signed by the party. * * * An unsigned paper shall be stricken unless omission of the signature is corrected promptly after being called to the attention of the attorney or party."
Rubber stamp facsimile signatures do not satisfy Rule 11(a). As the Court assumes that plaintiff would remedy the lack of signatures, however, it proceeds to consider the papers.
First, insofar as plaintiff objects to the report and recommendation, the objections are untimely. Plaintiff had until December 23, 2004 to file them. As these papers show, she did not dispatch them to the Court until January 8, 2005. Moreover, even if the Court were to excuse the untimeliness, the objections, which amount to little more than an ad hominem attack on Judge Dolinger, are entirely without merit.
Second, plaintiff's papers include a document styled "motion for leave to file instanter plaintiff's opposition to report and recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Dolinger." Thus, plaintiff acknowledges that her objections are late, but in substance seeks an extension of time nunc pro tunc. The only excuse plaintiff offers is the assertion that she "previously advised this Court that it would be physically impossible for her to prepare a response in the time allotted by the Court." Presumably this is a reference to her earlier application for an extension of time, which the Court found unconvincing but nevertheless granted to the extent of extending plaintiff's time from approximately December 1, 2004 through December 23, 2004. It is no more convincing now than it was then. The motion for leave to file therefore is denied.
Third, plaintiff moves "to impose default sanctions for subornation of perjury on the relevant defendants" etc. The motion is without merit and is denied.
In sum, then, the Clerk shall file plaintiff's papers. The objections to the report and recommendation are overruled as untimely and, alternatively, on the merits. The motion for leave to file instanter plaintiff's opposition to report and recommendation of Judge Dolinger is treated as a motion for an extension of time within which to file the objections and denied. The motion to impose sanctions is denied.
SO ORDERED.