Williams v. Harris County Housing Authority

Filing 81

ORDER OVERRULING 71 Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judges order 30 and AMENDED 40 MOTION.(Signed by Judge Gray H Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
JUNE R. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
HARRIS COUNTY
HOUSING AUTHORITY,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

August 29, 2016
David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-3570

ORDER
Pending before the court are plaintiff June R. Williams’s objections to the order of the
magistrate judge demanding an immediate submission of the opposition on the defendant’s motion
for summary judgment.”1 Dkt. 71. The order to which Williams objects was entered on February
16, 2016, and addressed a motion for a protective order in which Williams untimely objected to prior
discovery rulings. See Dkt. 70. Therein, the magistrate judge also recounted the course of filings
related to Williams’s motion for summary judgment, which was filed on November 20, 2015. See
id. The magistrate judge explained that Williams had failed to timely respond to the defendant’s
motion for summary despite having received an extension. See id. The magistrate judge concluded,
“If Plaintiff intends to file a response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, it must be filed
immediately.” Id.
Williams objected to the order on March 7, 2016, twenty days after the order was entered.
Dkt. 71. On the same day, Williams filed a 241-page brief plus 114 pages of exhibits in response
to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 73. On March 23, 2016, the magistrate judge

1

In the same filing, Plaintiff moved to recuse the magistrate judge, which is addressed by the magistrate judge
in a separate order.

held a status conference, at which the magistrate judge struck Williams’s response brief because it
violated the court’s page limit but allowed Williams two weeks to file a response brief of twenty-five
pages or less. See Dkt. 76.
A party may file objections to a nondispositive motion within fourteen days of being served
with a copy of a written order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Upon the filing of timely objections, the court
will “modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Id.;
see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).
Here, Williams’s objections were filed twenty days after the order was entered. Because
Williams is pro se and the time for objecting is measured from the date on which the order is served
not entered, the court will consider the objections timely. However, having reviewed the magistrate
judge’s order and Williams’s objections thereto, the court is of the opinion that the order was neither
clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Therefore, Williams’s objections are OVERRULED.
Signed at Houston, Texas on August 29, 2016.

___________________________________
Gray H. Miller
United States District Judge

2