SMITH v. STATE OF FLORIDA et al

Filing 22

ORDER re 20 MOTION for Reconsideration of 16 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief filed by TED SMITH is DENIED. Magistrate judge's order is AFFIRMED. Petitioner allowed to reply to respondent's answer if desired. (Replies due by 4/4/2012.). Signed by CHIEF JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS on 2/28/2012. (jws)

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
GAINESVILLE DIVISION
TED SMITH,
Petitioner,
v.

CASE NO. 1:11cv265-MP-GRJ

STATE OF FLORIDA, and
PAM BONDI, Florida Attorney General,
Respondents.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter is before the court on petitioner’s Objection to Magistrate Order Dated
February 7, 2012, which is construed as a motion for reconsideration.1 (Doc. 20). On
February 2, 2012, the magistrate judge entered an order granting the respondents’ motion
for extension of time to respond to petition for habeas corpus. Respondents requested an
extension of time to respond to the habeas petition because the July 21, 2011, evidentiary
hearing, placing the petitioner in custody under an order of commitment, was never
transcribed. The magistrate judge’s order directed respondents to file an answer or other
pleading on or before March 5, 2012, and granted petitioner until April 4, 2012, to file a
reply, if desired. On February 6, 2012, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss (curtail) state’s
motion of continuance - due to a procedural bar, which the magistrate judge denied.
Petitioner now objects to the magistrate judge’s denial of that motion, pursuant to Rule 72
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may serve and file
objections to a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive matter within 14 days after
being served with a copy. The district judge in the case must consider timely objections
and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.

1

Petitioner seeks a de novo [review] of the m agistrate judge’s order denying petitioner’s m otion
to dism iss the respondents’ request for extension of tim e to respond to the habeas petition.

Page 2 of 2

Upon consideration of the magistrate judge’s order (doc. 16) and petitioner’s timely
filed objections (doc. 17), I have determined that the order is neither clearly erroneous nor
contrary to law.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1.

Petitioner’s objections to the magistrate judge’s order seeking reconsideration

(doc. 20) is DENIED.
2.

The magistrate judge’s order (doc. 16) is affirmed.

3.

Should petitioner desire to file a reply to respondent’s answer, it shall be due

April 4, 2012.
DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of February, 2012.

s/

M. Casey Rodgers

M. CASEY RODGERS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case No: 1:11cv265-MP-GRJ