Cantrell v. Reed, et al

Filing 198

ORDER, the Court will accept Cantrell's 197 Objections to the magistrate judge's Orders 186 190 as filed on 6/5/11; however, they were due on 5/31/11, and are therefore denied as untimely. Signed by Chief Judge J. Leon Holmes on 6/14/11. (vjt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
JIMMY SHANE CANTRELL
ADC #98730
v.

PLAINTIFF

NO. 5:05CV00169 JLH-HDY

M.D. REED, Warden, Cummins Unit,
Arkansas Department of Correction, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

On May 9, 2011, United States Magistrate Judge H. David Young entered an order granting
the motion of Jimmy Shane Cantrell to remove his current counsel and denying his motion for
appointment of new counsel. Cantrell promptly filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied
on May 12, 2011, by Magistrate Judge Young. Cantrell has now filed objections to the Magistrate
Judge Young’s orders (Documents #186 and #190).
Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 72.1.VII.B provide that
an objection to a magistrate judge’s determination of a non-dispositive matter must be served and
filed within fourteen days after service of a copy of the order. Rule 6(d) provides that in some
circumstances an additional three days is added to the period otherwise would expire. Rule
6(a)(1)(C) provides that if the last day of a period is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period
continues to run until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
As mentioned, the two orders to which Cantrell objects were entered on May 9, 2011, and
May 12, 2011. Each was mailed on the day it was entered. Taking the latest of these dates, May 12,
fourteen days later would make the deadline for an objection to be May 26, 2011. Adding three
additional days would make the deadline for any objections May 29, 2011. May 29, 2011, was a

Sunday, and May 30, 2011, was a federal holiday, so the deadline for Cantrell to file his objections
would be extended to May 31, 2011.
Cantrell’s objections were docketed on June 9, 2011. However, he has dated his signature
as June 5, 2011, and his certificate of service states that he mailed his objections on June 5, 2011.
Following the prison mailbox rule, the Court will accept Cantrell’s objections as filed on June 5,
2011. They were due, however, on May 31, 2011. Cantrell’s objections are therefore untimely.
Pursuant to Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 72.1.VII.B,
Cantrell’s objections to the orders of the magistrate judge entered as Document #186 and Document
#190 are denied as untimely.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of June, 2011.

J. LEON HOLMES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2