Hampton v. Perez et al

Filing 116

MINUTE ORDER granting in part and denying in part 114 Plaintiffs Motion for Order for review of additional information and/or objections to the Report and Recommendations, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 6/25/09.(erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-01732-CMA-MEH NATHANIEL HAMPTON, Plaintiff, v. PEREZ, CPO, UNKNOWN NAMED CPO, D.O.C., CM, PAROLE BOARD APPEAL REVIEWING OFFICERS on Dec. 19, 2006, WATERS, Parole Board Hearing Officer, and MARK ALLISON, CPO, Defendants. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on June 25, 2009. Plaintiff's "Request"[filed June 22, 2009; docket #114], which the Court construes as a motion for review of additional information and/or objections to the Report and Recommendations, is granted in part and denied in part. To the extent Plaintiff asserts additional objections to the recommendation, the motion is denied as untimely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2) (2009) (within ten days after being served with a copy of a recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations). Plaintiff makes no argument as to why the deadline should be extended. The Court notes that any objection raised in Plaintiff's Motion to Stay and Abey all Proceedings Pending Disposition [docket #105] was made on May 12, 2009, six days after Plaintiff filed his Motion for Reconsideration and almost three weeks after the deadline for filing objections passed. Any new objection raised in the within motion is made more than eight weeks after the objection deadline. With respect to Plaintiff's request that the Court mail him a copy of the order denying his Motion to Stay, the request is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to mail a copy of this Court's order, found at docket #107, to Plaintiff at the following address: Nathaniel Hampton 218 E. Fountain Blvd. Colorado Springs, CO 80903