Opinion
Civil Case No. 99-cv-01167-LTB-MEH.
June 22, 2009
ORDER
On August 21, 2008, I entered my Order that Plaintiff, having failed to file specific written objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, was barred from de novo review and therefore denied Plaintiff's Motion for Relief Due to Defendants' Failure to Comply with Order (Doc 143). Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge, on April 24, 2009, issued his Recommendation (Doc 166) that in the interests of justice, Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Permitting filing Objection to the Recommendation, Doc 156 out of time, be granted. No objection to the Recommendation for filing out of time was filed. It appears that Plaintiff has now filed timely written objections to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that Plaintiff's Motion for Relief Due to Defendants' Failure to Comply with Order (Doc 143) be denied. I have therefore reviewed the recommendation de novo in light of the objections to it and the file and record in this case. I conclude first, that the objections are timely. I also find and conclude on de novo review that the Recommendation is correct.
Accordingly
Plaintiff's Motion for Relief Due to Defendants' Failure to Comply with Order (Doc 143) is DENIED.