Steiger v. Strange et al (INMATE 2)

Filing 68

ORDER: it is ORDERED that plf's 67 objections are overruled as untimely under Rule 72(a) of the FRCP; This case remains closed in this court. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/29/2021. (bes, )

Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION BRADLEY JOSEPH STEIGER, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. STATE ATT’Y GEN. LUTHER STRANGE, et al., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:16cv893-MHT (WO) ORDER Now before the court are plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 67), filed on June 23, 2021, to the United States Magistrate Judge’s Order (Doc. 66) entered on May 27, 2021, which denied plaintiff’s request to re-open this civil action. Under Procedure, Rule when 72(a) a of the magistrate Federal judge Rules issues of a Civil written order on a non-dispositive motion, “[a] party may serve and file objections to the order within 14 days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to.” Here, the court’s order was mailed to Steiger on May 27, 2021. Assuming--quite generously--that it took a week for plaintiff to receive the order in the mail, his deadline to file objections to the judge’s order expired on June 17, 2021.* magistrate Plaintiff, however, failed to file his objections within the time allowed by Therefore, the the Federal court Rules finds of Civil Procedure. plaintiff’s objections untimely filed, and they are due to be overruled on this ground. * When plaintiff filed the instant complaint, he was a state inmate. Since filing the complaint, plaintiff has been released from custody and is no longer serving a term of imprisonment (see Motion to Renew Complaint (Doc. 64) at 1) or supervised release (see United States v. Steiger, 2:00cr170-ECM (M.D. Ala.)). Therefore, the “mail box rule,” which deems a pro se inmate’s court document or other filing as having been filed the date it is delivered to prison officials for mailing (see Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 271-272 (1988)), does not apply and, based on the date plaintiff signed his objections--June 18, 2021--would not apply even if plaintiff was incarcerated. 2 *** Accordingly, it is ORDERED that plaintiff’s objections (Doc. 67) are overruled as untimely under Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This case remains closed in this court. DONE, this the 28th day of June, 2021. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?