Filing 18

ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE - adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 9 Report and Recommendations; denying 10 Motion to Extend Time. By JUDGE D. BROCK HORNBY. (mnw)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE JONATHAN FISHMAN, PLAINTIFF V. BRADLEY WILLIAMS, DEFENDANT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL NO. 1:16-CV-362-DBH ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On September 6, 2016, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with copies to the parties, his Recommended Decision on Removal Jurisdiction and Defendant’s Failure to Respond to Order to Show Cause. The time within which to file objections expired on September 23, 2016, and no objections have been filed. The Magistrate Judge notified the parties that failure to object would waive their right to de novo review and appeal. To the extent the defendant’s “notice of tampering resulting in bodily harm & malicious arrest,” a lengthy document filed on September 15, 2016 (ECF No. 10), is a request for an extension of time to respond to the Report and Recommended Decision for 30 days after his September 1 surgery or until October 7,1 both those dates have passed. To the extent it is a request for an “Bradley Williams is under strict doctors orders to neither read nor write for at least 30 more days or until an exam around Oct. 7, 2016 and types this at great peril to his vision, therefore he requires the mercy and indulgence of this court.” Id. at 2. 1 open-ended extension,2 it is DENIED. The filing in no way justifies failure to respond to the Court’s July 18, 2016 Order to Show Cause, which had a deadline of July 29, 2016. The defendant’s asserted reason for delay now is that he suffered an eye injury on August 31, 2016, but that has no bearing on the earlier missed deadline. Both the lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the defendant’s blatant failure to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause well before August 31, 2016 are obvious. I would remand the case even without the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, and I therefore conclude that no further delay is justifiable. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED. Because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the defendant’s failure to respond to the court’s Order to Show Cause, the action is REMANDED to state court. SO ORDERED. DATED THIS 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2016 /S/D. BROCK HORNBY D. BROCK HORNBY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Williams “requests extensions for the deadlines imposed by the rules of procedure until given permission by Dr. Parnes to read and write again.” Id. at 2. Obviously the court has no means to measure that proposed extension, and the plaintiff apparently means to leave it within his own control. 2 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?