Brunet v. the City of New York

Full title: MAURICE BRUNET, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Mar 18, 2002

99 Civ. 12462 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2002)

Opinion

99 Civ. 12462 (LAK)

March 18, 2002

ORDER

LEWIS A. KAPLAN, United States District Judge.

In a report and recommendation dated March 6, 2002, Magistrate Judge Eaton recommended the grant of defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing the complaint and the denial of plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment.

By letter dated March 11, 2002, plaintiff arguably has sought an extension of time within which to object to the report and recommendation. But this does not begin to give the flavor of his communication.

To begin with, plaintiff has not directly sought an extension. Rather, he asks for an extension only if "your Honor is inclined to accept this `recommendation." But that is not the way it works. The Court does not review reports and recommendations of Magistrate Judges, advise the litigants of whether it is "inclined" to adopt them, and then afford an opportunity to object to the party that would be aggrieved were the Court to follow its "inclination."

Second, plaintiff asserts that he requires "no less than a year" to file objections, should objections be required. Incarcerated or not, there is no reason at all for any such extension.

Third, the nature of the advocacy in question is exemplified to plaintiff's stern objection to Judge Eaton's citation of Irish Lesbian and Gay Organization v. Guiliani, 143 F.3d 638, 644 (2d Cir. 1998), for the standard applicable to Rule 12(c) motions. He expresses umbrage over the reference on the ground that neither he nor the Guardians, an association of African-American police officers to which he belonged, is gay. He fails to understand that plaintiff's sexual orientation has nothing whatever to do with the applicability of a case discussing a procedural rule in this case and that Judge Eaton most assuredly was not attempting "to character assassinate [plaintiff] by subtly implying" that he is gay.

In all the circumstances, the Court sua sponte treats plaintiff's letter as an objection to the report and recommendation so as to preserve his appellate avenues. In addition, it will treat any further objections received by the Court on or before March 29, 2002 as part of his objection.

SO ORDERED.