Majid v. Berryhill

Full title: MOHAMMED ABDUL MAJID, Plaintiff, v. U.S. MARSHAL BERRYHILL, et al.…

Court: United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

Date published: Feb 13, 2006

Case No. CIV-05-08-M (W.D. Okla. Feb. 13, 2006)

Opinion

Case No. CIV-05-08-M.

February 13, 2006

ORDER

VICKI MILES-LaGRANGE, District Judge

Before the Court is plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate's Order Dated January 13, 2006. In his objections, plaintiff contends that the United States Magistrate Judge erred when he denied plaintiff's motion for extension of time as untimely. Specifically, plaintiff contends that his motion to compel, which was timely filed, should have also been construed as a motion for extension of time. Having carefully reviewed plaintiff's objections and his motion to compel, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge did not err in failing to construe the motion to compel as a motion for extension of time and did not err in denying the motion for extension of time as untimely.

In his objections, plaintiff also contends that the Magistrate Judge erred in denying plaintiff's motion to compel based on defendants' assertion of qualified immunity. Specifically, plaintiff asserts that defendants have not raised the issue of qualified immunity. Having carefully reviewed the file in this matter, the Court finds that defendants Suedo and Berryhill have raised the issue of qualified immunity. See Defendants' Suedo and Berryhill's Motion to Dismiss [docket no. 72]. Accordingly, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge did not err in denying plaintiff's motion to compel based on defendants' assertion of qualified immunity.

The Court, therefore, OVERRULES plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate's Order Dated January 13, 2006 [docket no. 86].

IT IS SO ORDERED.