Rutledge v. Aveda et al

Filing 50

ORDER ADOPTING 44 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The court ACCEPTS the recommendation that all four counts of plff's complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as set out herein. Any motion for leave to amend complaint is due by 5/22/2015. Signed by Judge Abdul K Kallon on 5/22/2015. (YMB)

FILED
2015 May-12 AM 10:29
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

ADRIENNE RUTLEDGE,
Plaintiff,
v.
AVEDA, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action Number
2:14-cv-00145-AKK

ORDER
On March 25, 2015, the magistrate judge entered a report and
recommendation, doc. 44, regarding the defendants’ motions to dismiss, docs. 28,
30, and the parties were allowed fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to
the recommendations. On April 13, 2015, the plaintiff filed objections to the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Doc. 47.
Having reviewed the pleadings, the briefs, the magistrate’s report and
recommendation, and the plaintiff’s objections thereto, even though the latter were
untimely submitted,1 the court hereby ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge.
1

The plaintiff argues that the deadline for filing an objection was April 13, not April 8
because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) provides her with three extra days from the date of
Page 1 of 2

The court further ACCEPTS the recommendation of the magistrate judge that all
four counts of the plaintiff’s complaint be DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, the plaintiff be granted leave to move to amend her complaint to
comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) and 9(b), and the case be
referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. Any motion for leave
to amend is due by May 22, 2015.
DONE this 12th day of May, 2015.
________________________________
ABDUL K. KALLON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

electronic service. Doc. 46 at 2–3. Rule 6(d) provides for three extra days “[w]hen a party may or
must act within a specified time after service . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (emphasis added). In
other words, it applies to deadlines that are triggered by service. The magistrate judge’s order
specified that any objections were due fourteen days after “the date [the Report] is filed in the
office of the Clerk.” Doc. 44 at 27 (emphasis added). Consequently, because service was not
involved in generating the deadline at issue here, Rule 6(d) has no bearing on the timeliness of
the plaintiff’s objection. See Advanced Microtherm, Inc. v. Norman Wright Mech. Equip. Corp.,
C 04-02266 JW, 2006 WL 1525695, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2006) (“In this case, the April
Notice and the terms of [the discovery order] both indicate that the ten-day period was triggered
by the date of the order itself, and not service. Because Rule 6(d), by its own terms, does not
apply unless the period to be calculated is triggered by the date of service, Plaintiffs[’] objections
are untimely.”).
Page 2 of 2