Summary
considering pro se litigant's untimely objections to an R&R
Summary of this case from Jamie M. v. GarlandOpinion
File No. 19-cv-2931 (ECT/HB)
02-14-2020
William Lee Grant II, Plaintiff, v. Central Intelligence Agency and Special Collection Service, Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This case is before the Court on a Report and Recommendation issued by United States Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. ECF No. 3. Magistrate Judge Bowbeer recommends dismissing Plaintiff William Lee Grant II's pro se complaint with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and denying Grant's application to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. Id. at 3-4. Grant filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. ECF No. 4. Though Grant's objections were untimely—the deadline to file objections was January 16 but his were not filed until January 21—the objections have been considered because Grant is proceeding pro se and he was late by only a few days. Id.; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d). Because Grant has objected, the Court is required to review the Report and Recommendation de novo pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.2(b)(3). The Court has undertaken that de novo review and has concluded that Grant's objections make no sense and that Magistrate Judge Bowbeer's analysis and conclusions are correct.
Therefore, based upon all the files, records, and proceedings in the above-captioned matter, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff's Objections to the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 4] are OVERRULED;
2. The Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 3] is ACCEPTED in full;
3. The action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
4. Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in District Court without Prepaying Fees or Costs [ECF No. 2] is DENIED AS MOOT.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: February 14, 2020
s/Eric C. Tostrud
Eric C. Tostrud
United States District Court