Opinion
23-11666
06-06-2024
JAVAN JERRELLE WILSON, SR., Plaintiff, v. NATHANIEL SMITH, BRIAN SHIPMAN, JEROME WARFIELD, SR., CRISSA BLANKENBURG, and TIMOTHY FLANAGAN, Defendants.
Kimberly G. Altman Magistrate Judge.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART REQUEST TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR FILING OBJECTIONS
DAVID M. LAWSON United States District Judge.
On May 30, 2024, the parties docketed a stipulation stating their joint request to extend the deadline for filing objections to a report and recommendation recently issued by the assigned magistrate judge. The stipulation did not state any grounds for the requested schedule adjustment save that “the parties would like more time to properly address the issues raised in the report and recommendation.” Modification of scheduling deadlines established by the Court typically requires a showing of good cause. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(4). A party shows good cause by demonstrating a “reasonable justification” for its failure to complete the required tasks within the time prescribed. Foster v. Halter, 279 F.3d 348, 357 (6th Cir. 2001). It may do so by advancing specific facts that describe the magnitude of the undertaking, the time available for completion, and circumstances that would prevent a reasonable person from performing within the time allowed by a statute or court rule. United States ex rel. Kalish v. Desnick, 765 F.Supp. 1352, 1354 (N.D. Ill. 1991). Generalizations and conclusory allegations will not suffice. Ibid. The parties in this instance have made no effort to articulate specific facts establishing good cause for the requested schedule adjustment. Nevertheless, the Court will grant a modest extension of the looming deadline to afford some additional time for counsel to complete the required work. No further requests for extension of the deadline will be entertained.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that any objections to the report and recommendation (ECF No. 57) must be filed on or before June 11, 2024. No further requests for extension of the time to object will be entertained.