Bethel et al v. City of Montgomery et al (MAG+)

Filing 75

ORDER; 74 Motion to Reconsider and Motion for an Extension of Time to File Objection to Magistrates Recommendation is denied. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 3/26/2010. (jg, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION O R L A N D O BETHEL, et al., P la in tif f s , v. C IT Y OF MONTGOMERY, et al., D e f e n d a n ts. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C A S E NO. 2:04-cv-743-MEF-CSC (W O - DO NOT PUBLISH)

ORDER O n March 2, 2010, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation, re c o m m e n d in g that this case be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. #71). Plaintiffs had until M a rc h 16, 2010 to file objections. On March 17, 2010, without objection, this Court adopted t h e Report and Recommendation and entered a final judgment in this case. (Docs. #72 & 7 3 ). A week later, on March 24, 2010, Plaintiffs filed their first response to the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , in the form of a Motion to Reconsider and Motion for an Extension of T im e to File Objection to Magistrates Recommendation. (Doc. #74). As cause for an e x te n s io n , Plaintiffs stated only that an extensive period of inactivity had preceded the M a g is tra te Judge's entering of the Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs did not state that th e y received the Report and Recommendation close to or after the deadline for filing o b je c tio n s , nor did they give any cause for neglecting to file their motion for an extension u n til more than a week after that same deadline had passed. W h e n an act must be done within a specified time and that time has expired, the Court

may only grant a motion to extend that time for good cause and because of excusable neglect o n the part of the moving parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED th a t the motion (Doc. #74) is DENIED. DONE this the 26th day of March, 2010. /s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE