Davis et al v. Hayes et al

Filing 33

ORDER STRIKING OBJECTIONS AS UNTIMELY 31 Objection, by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (cc: Mailed to plaintiff to address on docket. Address has not been updated and previous mail returned)(SG)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9 KEITH ADAIR DAVIS,
10
11

CASE NO. C16-1709 RSM
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER STRIKING OBJECTIONS AS
UNTIMELY

WILLIAM HAYES, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Keith Adair Davis’ Objections to the

15 Second Report and Recommendation. Dkt. #31.

On March 24, 2017, a Second Report and

16 Recommendation (“R&R”) was issued in this matter, allowing Plaintiff to file Objections no later
17 than Tuesday, April 11, 2017. Dkt. #26 at 14. The R&R stated “The Clerk should note the matter
18 for Thursday, April 13, 2017, as ready for the District Judge’s consideration if no objection is
19 filed.” Id. No objections were received by the Court. On April 14, 2017, the Court issued its
20 Order adopting the R&R. Dkt. #30.
21

On April 27, 2017, the Court received Objections from Plaintiff via mail. Dkt. #31. The

22 envelope containing the Objections indicates a postmark of April 25, 2017, however Plaintiff dated
23 his Objections April 10, 2017. Id. Plaintiff’s Objections do not discuss timeliness. Id.
24
ORDER STRIKING OBJECTIONS AS UNTIMELY - 1

1

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Objections are untimely. The deadline to file Objections

2 was Tuesday, April 11, 2017. Although Plaintiff dates his Objections the day before this deadline,
3 the record appears to indicate that Plaintiff’s Objections were mailed two weeks after this deadline.
4 The Court has no basis to grant Plaintiff relief from the deadline or to take Plaintiff’s date of
5 signing as fact over the evidence of late filing above. Accordingly, the Court will strike these
6 Objections. The Court notes that it has reviewed the Objections and, even if it had considered
7 them, nothing contained therein would cause the Court to deviate from its prior Order adopting the
8 Second R&R.
9

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff Davis’ Objections to the Second Report and

10 Recommendation (Dkt. #31) are STRICKEN as untimely.
11
12
13
14

Dated this 2nd day of May 2017.

A

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER STRIKING OBJECTIONS AS UNTIMELY - 1