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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?