Opinion
1:22-cv-00757-JLT-SAB (PC)
12-21-2023
TIMOTHY BAILEY, Plaintiff, v. T. COX, et al., Defendants.
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE OBJECTIONS
(DOC. 52)
On October 19, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending that Defendants' motion to dismiss the action be granted and Plaintiff's motion to amend be denied. (Doc. 49.) Plaintiff was granted 21 days to file objections. (Id. at 12.) On November 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address. (Doc. 50.) Thereafter, on November 7, 2023, Defendants served a copy of the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff. (Doc. 51.) Plaintiff did not file timely objections and the Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full on December 19, 2023, dismissing the action. (Doc. 53.) Judgment was entered the same day. (Doc. 54.)
On December 18, 2023, Defendant filed a request for an extension of time to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations, indicating that he was recently released from custody and did not receive the Findings and Recommendations until November 28, 2023. (Doc. 52.) However, Defendant's extension request was not docketed until the following day, so the Court was unaware of it when it adopted the Findings and Recommendations. Since judgment has been entered, the appropriate mechanism for Plaintiff to seek relief is by way of a request for reconsideration. Under circumstances such as those presented here, it is routine for the Court to construe late-filed objections as a motion for reconsideration. The Court cannot, however, proceed in this manner before objections have been filed. Therefore, the Court will take no further action on this matter unless and until Plaintiff submits objections. If Plaintiff files objections within thirty days of the date of this order, the Court will construe them as a request for reconsideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.