From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriquez v. Tucker

United States District Court, D. Arizona
May 5, 2006
No. 04-CV-2808-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. May. 5, 2006)

Opinion

No. 04-CV-2808-PHX-FJM.

May 5, 2006


ORDER


In our order dated April 21, 2006, we granted petitioner's motion to strike respondents' untimely objections and dismissed the petition for a writ of habeas corpus without prejudice (doc. 31). We have before us respondents' motion for reconsideration of that order (doc. 33).

Respondents creatively and incorrectly interpret the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (doc. 26). Pursuant to the Report and Recommendation, either party must submit their objection to the Report and Recommendation within 10 days of service thereof. If a party files an objection, the adverse party has 10 days from the service of the objection to file a response thereto. Contrary to respondents' contention, they do not have 10 days from the due date for petitioner's objection in which to file their own objection.

Respondents substantially exceeded their 10 day period in which to file an objection. Moreover, even if respondents' interpretation of the timing rules were correct, they should have set forth their contention in a response to petitioner's motion to strike, but they did not file a response.

Respondents failed to set forth any argument that would cause us to reconsider our order. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED DENYING the motion for reconsideration (doc. 33).


Summaries of

Rodriquez v. Tucker

United States District Court, D. Arizona
May 5, 2006
No. 04-CV-2808-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. May. 5, 2006)
Case details for

Rodriquez v. Tucker

Case Details

Full title:Jose J. Rodriguez, Petitioner, v. Deputy Warden Tucker, et al., Respondents

Court:United States District Court, D. Arizona

Date published: May 5, 2006

Citations

No. 04-CV-2808-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. May. 5, 2006)