United States of America v. Minnifield (INMATE3)

Filing 8

OPINION AND ORDER as follows: (1) Petitioner's 6 Motion for Extension of time is granted; (2) The 3 Order and 4 Final Judgment are vacated; (3) Petitioner is allowed until 7/27/06 to file his objections to the 2 Report and Recommendation; (4) This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings . Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/6/06. (cb, )

United States of America v. Minnifield (INMATE3)

Doc. 8

Case 2:05-cv-01066-MHT-CSC

Document 8

Filed 07/06/2006

Page 1 of 3

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

DONALD MINNIFIELD, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:05cv1066-MHT (WO)

OPINION AND ORDER On May 25, 2006 (Doc. no. 2), the magistrate judge entered a recommendation that the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition filed by petitioner Donald Minnifield should be denied because Minnifield failed to obtain the requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

authorizing this court to consider a successive § 2255 petition. There being no objections filed to the

recommendation, the court entered an order adopting the recommendation on June 16, 2006 (Doc. no. 3), and entered a final judgment on the same day (Doc. no. 4).

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 2:05-cv-01066-MHT-CSC

Document 8

Filed 07/06/2006

Page 2 of 3

On June 19, 2006 (Doc. no. 6), Minnifield filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to the May 25 recommendation.1 In this motion, Minnifield states that he never received a copy of the magistrate judge's

recommendation and that, consequently, he was denied the opportunity to file timely objections to the

recommendation.

Accordingly, he requests an extension of

time to file objections to the recommendation. In light of the foregoing, and for good cause, it is ORDERED, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), as follows:2 (1) Petitioner Donald Minnifield's motion for

extension of time (Doc. no. 6) is granted.

Although Minnifield's extension motion was datestamped "received" in this court on June 23, 2006, the court under the "mailbox rule," deems his motion filed on the date he delivered it to prison authorities for mailing, presumptively, June 19, 2006, the day that he signed it. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271-72 (1988); Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001).
1.

Rule 59(e) provides that "[a]ny motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment."
2.

2

Case 2:05-cv-01066-MHT-CSC

Document 8

Filed 07/06/2006

Page 3 of 3

(2) The order and final judgment entered on June 16, 2006 (Doc. nos. 3 & 4) are vacated. (3) Petitioner Minnifield is allowed until July 27, 2006, to file his objections to the

recommendation entered on May 25, 2006 (Doc. no. 2). (4) This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. DONE, this the 6th day of June, 2006. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE