Opinion
Civil Action No. 1:03-CV-2282.
January 30, 2006
ORDER
AND NOW, this 30th day of January, 2006, upon consideration of plaintiff's amended objections (Doc. 73) to the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 42), and it appearing that the court directed plaintiff to file amended objections by October 18, 2005 (see Doc. 61), and the court finding that plaintiff has not demonstrated excusable neglect for filing the objections sub judice over three months after the deadline, see FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(2) ("[When] an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the court for cause shown may . . . upon motion made after the expiration of the specified period permit the act to be done where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. . . ."); see also In re Cendant Corp. Prides Litig., 233 F.3d 188, 196 (3d Cir. 2000) (discussing factors to assess in determining excusable neglect), it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff's amended objections (Doc. 73) are STRICKEN from the docket as untimely. See FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(2).
2. The parties shall not be permitted to file any further submissions regarding the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (Doc. 42) absent leave of court.
The court notes that plaintiff belatedly filed amended objections on October 21, 2005. (See Doc. 62.)