Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-3828, SECTION "A" (1).
July 14, 2003.
MINUTE ENTRY
Before the Court is Cox's Motion to Review Magistrate Judge's Order (Rec. Doc. 92) filed by plaintiff Cox Communications of Louisiana, L.L.C. ("Cox"). Defendant Marlin Contracting Company ("Marlin") opposes the motion. The motion, set for hearing on July 16, 2003, is before the Court on the briefs without oral argument.
Cox challenges the May 27, 2003, decision issued by Magistrate Judge Shushan. The order was entered on May 28, 2003. Cox filed its objection on June 24, 2003, after Marlin filed a timely objection to other aspects of the same decision.
Marlin's objection was noticed for hearing on July 2, 2003. The Court denied Marlin's motion on July 10, 2003. Rec. Doc. 97.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) governs the district court's review of pre-trial discovery rulings rendered by a federal magistrate judge. Rule 72(a) provides in pertinent part:
Within 10 days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge's order, a party may serve and file objections to the order; a party may not thereafter assign as error a defect in the magistrate judge's order to which objection was not timely made.
Under Rule 72(a) Cox's objection to the decision entered on May 28, 2003, had to be filed no later than June 16, 2003. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a); 6(a), (e). Cox filed its objection on June 24, 2003. Cox's memorandum in support contains nothing to explain or justify the untimeliness of its motion.
The Court has given Cox the benefit of an additional three (3) days for service via U.S. mail pursuant to Rule 6(e) because the docket sheet for Civil Action 01-3828 suggests that Cox's fax number is incorrect.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that Cox's Motion to Review Magistrate Judge's Order (Rec. Doc. 92) filed by plaintiff Cox Communications of Louisiana, L.L.C. should be and is hereby DENIED.