Knod v. Director, TDCJ-CID

Filing 26

ORDER ADOPTING 21 Report and Recommendations. The Petitioner's motions for 13 Leave to File an Interlocutory Appeal; 14 Certificate of Appealability; and 24 Extension of Time are DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 12/30/11. (leh, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
DANIEL LEE KNOD, #1593785

§

VS.

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11cv140

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The above-entitled and numbered civil action was heretofore referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Judith K. Guthrie. The Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Magistrate
Judge, which contains proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of
Petitioner’s Motions for Leave to File an Interlocutory Appeal (docket entry #13) and for a
Certificate of Appealability (docket entry #14), has been presented for consideration. Petitioner has
not filed objections, though he has filed a Motion for Extension of Time (docket entry #24) in which
to file objections.
Petitioner acknowledged receipt of the Magistrate Judge’s R&R on December 7, 2011. See
Docket Entry #22. To be timely, his objections, or any motion for an extension of time, must have
been filed within 14 days of that date. He states in the certificate of service to his Motion for
Extension of Time that he placed it in the “United States mail” on December 20, 2011. That would
have been 13 days after he received the R&R. However, to qualify for the “prison mailbox rule,”
Petitioner must have mailed his motion through the prison mailing system. See Spotville v. Cain,
149 F.3d 374, 378 (5th Cir. 1998) (per curiam). He has not affirmed he did so. Nonetheless, even
crediting the date of his mailing, Petitioner claims he was unable to timely prepare his objections
1

because (1) he “recently broke a finger,” which is “still in pain”; and (2) he ran out of paper. Motion
at 1. Notwithstanding these reasons, he has been able to (1) hand-write his motion for an extension
of time on (2) paper he had available for filing. The Court notes that he also filed a pleading on
December 23, 2011, which was similarly handwritten on paper for filing. Furthermore, he has not
even attempted to outline any substantive objections to the R&R in his motion. Thus, he has given
the Court no substantive argument against the well-reasoned recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge. Therefore, the Court will not credit his reasons for an extension of time. Finally, he has not
specified a date for an effective extension. The Court will not grant an open-ended extension of
time. Therefore, his Motion for Extension of Time will be denied.
No timely objections to the R&R having been filed, the Court is of the opinion that the
findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and adopts same as the findings and
conclusions of the Court. It is therefore
ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion for Leave to File an Interlocutory Appeal (docket

. entry #13) is hereby DENIED. It is further
ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion for a Certificate of Appealability (docket entry #14)
is hereby DENIED as MOOT. It is finally
ORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion for Extension of Time (docket entry #24) is
DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 30th day of December, 2011.

2 ____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE