IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
September 18, 2006
JOHNNY ORTIZ, PLAINTIFF,
WILLIAM J. KILQUIST, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge
On September 6, 2006, the Court adopted the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") (Doc. 32) issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) by Magistrate Judge Frazier, ordering that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 15) be granted and further for Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief be denied as moot (Doc. 33). The Court noted that it was unnecessary to conduct a de novo review of the merits of Defendants' summary judgment motion, as none of the parties had filed objections to the R&R.*fn1 In accordance with the Court's Order adopting the findings of the R&R (Doc. 33), judgment was entered on September 7, 2006, in this case in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff (Doc. 35).
The record shows that a letter, written by Plaintiff, was filed with the Court on September 11, 2006 (Doc. 36). The letter itself is dated September 6, 2006, and explains that Plaintiff was unable to file timely objections to the R&R, or to file a motion for extension of time due to certain alleged difficulties. Thereafter, the Court has received and filed Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 37), supporting declaration (Doc. 38) and supporting memorandum (Doc. 39), all filed by the Court on September 13, 2006. Plaintiff's Motion asks for an extension of time to file objections to the R&R. However, the Motion does not give a date on the certificate of service, showing when it was mailed to opposing counsel and the Court. Additionally, the Court notes the Motion itself is dated August 26, 2006 -- four days after the actual deadline for filing objections had passed.
While the Court considers the possibility that Plaintiff may have experienced insurmountable difficulties in filing timely objections and acknowledges the fact that Courts are typically somewhat lenient towards pro se plaintiffs, it cannot completely ignore rules and deadlines. Judgment has been entered, closing this case. As such, there is no time window to extend.
For this reason, the Court must DENY Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 37), finding it MOOT.*fn2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
David R. Herndon United States District Judge