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, )
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?