Summary
denying a motion for an extension of time to file objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation because the "[p]etitioner provide[d] no reason for his requested delay"
Summary of this case from Ponicki v. MinnesotaOpinion
Civil No. 10-4493 (DSD/XXX).
December 29, 2010
ORDER
This matter is before the court upon the pro se motion of petitioner Muhammad Akbar for an extension of time to file objections to the December 9, 2010, report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Susan Richard Nelson. In her report, the magistrate judge recommends dismissal of petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus because it is barred by 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a) and because it is without merit.
A party may file written objections to a report and recommendation within 14 days. Petitioner provides no reason for his requested delay, and therefore, the court denies the motion. In the interest of justice, however, the court construes the motion as an objection, and reviews the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); D. Minn. LR 72.2(b). After a de novo review of the report and recommendation and de novo calculation of petitioner's good time credit, the court finds that the report and recommendation is well reasoned and correctly disposes of the petition. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Petitioner's motion for an extension [ECF No. 8] is denied;
2. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation [Doc. No. 4] is adopted in its entirety;
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: December 29, 2010