Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00040-EWN-BNB.
April 4, 2008
ORDER
This matter is before me on Plaintiff's Objection to the Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge and Request for Expediate [sic] Mailing System [Doc. #55, filed 3/31/08] (the "Motion").
On February 22, 2008, I issued a Recommendation [Doc. #44] that the defendant's Motion to Dismiss be granted in part and denied in part. The district judge accepted the Recommendation on March 20, 2008 [Doc. #50]. On March 31, 2008, the plaintiff filed the instant Motion wherein he states that he received the Recommendation by mail "way after the 10 day objection deadline had past [sic]" and the delayed receipt of the Recommendation "did not give room for plaintiff to object." Although much of the Motion is incomprehensible, the plaintiff asserts that the Court's mailing system is deficient and that it "seems" to him that "someone or a group is sabotaging plaintiff both in the courthouse and the mailing system." The plaintiff then states his objections to the Recommendation.
The Motion was referred to me by the district judge. Consequently, I construe it as a request to file objections to the Recommendation out of time. The plaintiff's assertions concerning his receipt of the Recommendation are vague. For example, he does not specify the date on which he received the Recommendation, nor does he explain why he did not seek an extension of time to file his objections during the month the Recommendation was pending before the district judge. Moreover, the plaintiff's mail is processed by the Court in the same manner as all other outgoing mail. His allegations of sabotage are incredible.
Having found no good cause to extend the plaintiff's deadline for filing objections to the Recommendation,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.