Opinion
Civil Action 20-cv-02411-CMA-MEH
11-14-2023
EUGENE F. MARTINEZ, JR., Plaintiff, v. MRS. MITZEL, et al., Defendants.
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's “Motion for this Case to Be Reopened.” ECF 105. On April 19, 2021, I recommended that this case be administratively closed until the incarcerated, pro se Plaintiff was in a position to engage in litigation. ECF 80. Judge Arguello agreed and administratively closed the case on May 12, 2021, giving Plaintiff one year to seek any extension or reopening for good cause, otherwise, the case would be dismissed. ECF 81. Plaintiff sought and was granted such extensions. ECF 85, 88, 93, 95, 96, 99. Plaintiff having complied with all conditions given him, and Plaintiff having timely sought a reopening of the case, I respectfully recommend that Judge Arguello grant the Motion and reopen this case.
Be advised that all parties shall have fourteen (14) days after service hereof to serve and file any written objections in order to obtain reconsideration by the District Judge to whom this case is assigned. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. The party filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which the objections are being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive or general objections. A party's failure to file such written objections to proposed findings and recommendations contained in this report may bar the party from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676-83 (1980); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Additionally, the failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy may bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and legal conclusions of the Magistrate Judge that are accepted or adopted by the District Court. Duffield v. Jackson, 545 F.3d 1234, 1237 (10th Cir. 2008) (quoting Moore v. United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991)).