Robinson v. Res-Care, Inc.
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Plaintiff alleges that the Court did not mail her a copy of the Proposed Findings and Recommendation until January 14, 2013, preventing her from timely objecting. She further states that she would have responded to this had the court mailed it out on time, but appears to consider objections precluded by the passing of the January 14, 2013 deadline. Should the plaintiff not wish to object to the magistrate judges Proposed Findings and Recommendations, she may so advise the court in writing or do nothing Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 4/10/2013. (cc: attys; pro se plaintiff, Mag. Judge) (tmr)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
MARGARET I. ROBINSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 2:12-05672
RES-CARE, INC.,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending is the defendant’s motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, filed November 15, 2012.
This action was previously referred to Mary E.
Stanley, United States Magistrate Judge, who submitted her
Proposed Findings and Recommendation pursuant to the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) on December 27, 2012.
She
recommends granting the defendant’s motion and dismissing the
plaintiff’s six defamation claims, finding five of the claims
barred by the applicable statute of limitations and the sixth
premised on statements protected by an absolute privilege.
The plaintiff did not object to the Proposed Findings
and Recommendation within the prescribed period, which expired
on January 14, 2013, but eventually filed a letter-form
statement on January 29, 2013.
She alleges that the court did
not mail her a copy of the Proposed Findings and Recommendation
until January 14, 2013, preventing her from timely objecting.
She further states that she “would have responded to this had
the court mailed it out on time,” but appears to consider
objections precluded by the passing of the January 14, 2013
deadline.
No evidence establishing the date on which she claims
the court mailed to her the Proposed Findings and Recommendation
or the date on which that document was delivered to the
plaintiff’s post office box accompanies her written statement.
Given that this matter remains pending until the court
enters final judgment, and given the plaintiff’s contention that
a mailing delay deprived her of sufficient time to object, the
court grants the plaintiff until April 26, 2013 to file herein
proof of late mailing.
Specifically, the plaintiff must provide
evidence establishing either the date on which the documents
were mailed – such as the postmarked envelope in which the
proposed findings were mailed to her - or the date on which the
magistrate judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendation was
delivered to her post office box.
If the plaintiff establishes
the late mailing claimed by her, the court anticipates extending
the time in which she may file objections.
Should the plaintiff not wish to object to the
magistrate judge’s Proposed Findings and Recommendations, she
may so advise the court in writing or do nothing.
The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this
written opinion and order to the pro se plaintiff, all counsel
of record, and the United States Magistrate Judge.
DATED: April 10, 2013
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge
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?