Richardson v. Dayton Public Schools et al

Filing 21

DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS UNTIMELY. Since neither one of Defendants filings was untimely, Plaintiffs Objection is overruled. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 5/3/2010. (gh1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
EARL RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, -vs: DAYTON PUBLIC SCHOOLS, et al., Defendants. : Case No. 3:10-cv-028 Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS UNTIMELY

This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Objection to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss on the grounds that the motions are untimely (Doc. No. 20). Plaintiff notes that he filed this case on January 25, 2010, and asserts that Defendants filed "answers" sixty-one days later on March 26, 2010, and eighty-nine days later on April 22, 2010. Id. at PageID 98. An examination of the docket reveals that the Complaint was indeed filed on January 25, 2010. However, the time within which a defendant must respond to a complaint runs from the date on which the defendant is served with process, not the date of filing. The Return of the United States Marshal, the officer who made service in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, shows that Defendants were all served on March 5, 2010 (Doc. No. 6). Their response was thus due twenty-one days later, or on March 26, 2010, the day they filed their Motion to Dismiss. The later filing to which Plaintiff refers was Defendants' Reply Memorandum in support of the Motion to Dismiss. That filing was due seventeen days after Plaintiff's Memorandum in
1

Opposition, or on May 3, 2010. It was actually filed early, on April 22, 2010. Since neither one of Defendants' filings was untimely, Plaintiff's Objection is overruled. May 3, 2010.
s/ Michael R. Merz United States Magistrate Judge

2