GIBSON v. DOE

Filing 36

ORDER CONSIDERING OBJECTIONS DE NOVO, TREATING THEM AS A MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE JUDGMENT, AND DENYING THE MOTION - The plaintiff's objections, ECF No. 35 , are deemed timely. Upon de novo review of the issues raised by the objections, the report and recommendation is again accepted and adopted as the courts opinion. In addition to being treated as objections, the plaintiff's objections are also deemed a motion to alter or amend the judgment. The motion to alter or amend is denied. Signed by JUDGE MARK E WALKER on 5/8/2014. (dlt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

DERRICK L. GIBSON, SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 4:13-cv-117-MW/GRJ

JOHN DOE and
MICHAEL D. CREWS,
Defendants.
_____________________________/
ORDER CONSIDERING OBJECTIONS DE NOVO,
TREATING THEM AS A MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND THE
JUDGMENT, AND DENYING THE MOTION
The Magistrate Judge entered a report and recommendation concluding that
this civil-rights case should be dismissed. ECF No. 30. This Court entered its
Order Accepting and Adopting Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 33, on
April 23, 2014, directing the Clerk to enter judgment. Judgment was entered by
the Clerk on April 23, 2014. ECF No. 34.
Plaintiff has now moved to file an objections out of time. ECF No. 35. This
Court has reconsidered de novo the issues raised by the objections, just as would
have been done had the objections been received prior to any ruling on the report

1

and recommendation, and still concludes that the report and recommendation is
correct.
In addition, this Court treats the objections as a motion to alter or amend the
judgment, thus making clear that the time for the plaintiff to file a notice of appeal
runs from the entry of this order denying the motion—not from the earlier date of
the judgment itself.
For these reasons,
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The plaintiff’s objections, ECF No. 35, are deemed timely. Upon de
novo review of the issues raised by the objections, the report and recommendation
is again accepted and adopted as the court’s opinion.
2. In addition to being treated as objections, the plaintiff’s objections are
also deemed a motion to alter or amend the judgment. The motion to alter or
amend is denied.
SO ORDERED on May 8, 2014.
s/Mark E. Walker
United States District Judge

2