Opinion
CV-23-08002-PCT-JAT
11-22-2024
Marzet Farris, III, Petitioner, v. Attorney General of the State of Arizona, et al., Respondents.
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Petitioner's third motion for extension of time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”). (Doc. 54). As the Court discussed in the two prior Orders, Petitioner has already had considerable time to file objections. Specifically, the R&R was filed on June 20, 2024. The second extension of time gave Petitioner until November 20, 2024, to file objections, or five months from when the R&R issued.
The Court recognizes that the R&R is long, which is why the Court found good cause to grant the extensions Petitioner has received thus far. Now Petitioner seeks an additional two weeks to file objections.
When this Court receives an R&R, it “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). District courts are not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”).
The Court will grant Petitioner one last extension. However, the Court still considers five months to be adequate time to file objections. Thus, the Court still finds November 20, 2024, to be reasonable. Nonetheless, by the time Petitioner filed his third request for an extension of time on November 18, 2024, and this Court had an opportunity to review it and prepare an Order, the deadline passed. For this reason, the Court will grant the extension.
Petitioner is cautioned, however, that this is the last extension. If his objections are not file by December 4, 2024, the Court will deem Petitioner to have forfeited his opportunity to file objections; and any untimely objections received after that deadline will not be considered. Further, as the Court recounted above, the Court will not review any portion of the R&R de novo if timely objections are not received.
Thus, IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's motion for extension of time (Doc. 54) is granted to the limited extent that Petitioner's objections are due by December 4, 2024. There will be no further extensions of this deadline.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the page limits established in Doc. 51 are unchanged.