Rieb v. Rawlinson et al

Filing 37

ORDER denying 35 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response as to 25 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 2/9/2016. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

Eric Andrew Rieb,

Civil Action No.1: 15-2933-RMG

)
)

Plaintiff,

v.

)
)
ORDER

)
)

Bradford A. Rawlinson, Esq.; Warden
Robert M. Stevenson III, Warden of
Broad River Corr. Inst.; Lt. John Rivera,
Lieutenant Supervisor ofBroad River
Contraband Control and Broad River
Property Control; Ofr. Mike Goloch;
and Sgt. Beverly Bracy, in their
individual and offiCial capacities,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Defendants.

)
)

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs motion for an open-ended extension of time
(Dkt. No. 35) in which to file objections to a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 25) that the
Court has already adopted (Dkt. No. 31.) The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of
Plaintiffs claims for want of prosecution, because Plaintiff failed to file a response to
Respondents' motion for summary judgment despite several extensions of the deadline (Dkt. Nos.
21 & 23). The day after the Magistrate Judge filed the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff filed
motions seeking, inter multa alia, an extension of time to oppose summary judgment, because of
an alleged lack of access to a photocopier and to writing paper (Dkt. Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30). Those
motions were mailed the day after the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal, but were dated
December 17-the due date for Plaintiffs response to the summary judgment motion. Plaintiffs
motions also revealed that the true purpose of his action was not to remedy unlawful conduct by
prison officials but rather to attack his criminal conviction: Plaintiff "ultimately seeks the District

-1­

Court to grant his Federal writ of habeas corpus as relief in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983" action. The
Court therefore adopted the Report and Recommendation and dismissed the action with prejudice.
Plaintiff now claims he failed to object to the Report and Recommendation because he was
hospitalized. Plaintiff gives no details as to the cause or the dates of his hospitalization. Again,
Plaintiff dates his motion just within a deadline but actually mails it several days later. He now
asks for an open-ended extension of time of "unrequested length" without even asserting an
intention to file anything on the merits by any date certain. Nothing in Plaintiffs motion suggests
any cause for setting aside judgment in this case. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion.
The Court will not consider further requests for extensions of time in this matter. Plaintiff
may file a motion to reconsider by mailing it to the Court no later than February 18,2016 (the 28
days allowed by Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with the benefit of Houston v.

Lack, 486 U.S. 266 (1988)). Any motion mailed after that date will be construed under Rule 60(b)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, regardless of whatever date Plaintiff writes on the motion
itself.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time is DENIED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

Richard Mark rgel
United States District Court Judge

,"l

February _7_,2016
Charleston, South Carolina

-2­