Opinion
02 Civ. 8957 (LAK).
July 8, 2003.
ORDER
Plaintiff moves for reconsideration of this Court's May 22, 2003 order, which adopted the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that it be dismissed as barred by the statute of limitations. No objections to the report and recommendation were filed. The motion for reconsideration also is untimely, coming long after the ten day period prescribed by S.D.N.Y. Civ. R. 6.3.
Plaintiff concedes that the action was untimely, but now argues that she failed to object because she did not understand what was required of her. She contends also that she failed to file a timely motion for reconsideration because she was unaware of the ten day time limit.
The Court assumes that, even at this late date, it may extend the period within which to seek reconsideration for appropriate reasons. Plaintiff, however, was specifically warned by the report and recommendation that she had ten days in which to file objections and that the failure to do so would preclude appellate review. Report and recommendation, at 2. Her contention that she did not understand that she was required to file something new if she wished to object cannot be squared with that advice. In consequence, the Court declines to reconsider its ruling. Even were it to do so, however, plaintiff still would not have shown any basis for equitable tolling. Accordingly, the Court in any case would adhere to its original ruling.
Motion denied.
SO ORDERED.