Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 3:05-CR-00139-TBR CIVL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-00347-TBR
07-26-2017
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF v. COREY GUTHRIE MOVANT/DEFENDANT
CC: Counsel of Record Corey Guthrie, pro se
Memorandum Opinion and Order
This matter is before the Court upon Movant Corey Guthrie's motion for an extension of time to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation. [DN 142.] The United States responded, [DN 143], and the time for filing a reply has passed. Guthrie's motion is ripe for adjudication.
The Magistrate Judge issued his findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a recommendation that Guthrie's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate be denied on February 14, 2017. [DN 132.] Guthrie had until February 28 to file any objections to the R&R. On February 27, Guthrie filed a motion for extension of time, stating that a prison lockdown prevented him from working on his objections. [DN 133; DN 135.] The Magistrate Judge granted Guthrie an extension, allowing him to file any objections by April 7. [DN 136.]
Guthrie moved for a second extension of time on April 10, once again stating that a lockdown prevented him from accessing the prison library and completing his objections. [DN 137.] The Magistrate Judge granted Guthrie a second, final extension, extending the deadline for his objections to May 24. [DN 138.] That deadline passed without the Court receiving Guthrie's objections. Accordingly, on June 9, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation and denied Guthrie's § 2255 motion. [DN 140; DN 141.]
On June 14, after the Court had entered its judgment, Guthrie filed another motion for extension of time. [DN 142.] His grounds for that motion are the same as his first two: because of a prison lockdown, he was unable to work on his case. The United States opposes Guthrie's motion. [DN 143.]
All told, ninety-nine days elapsed between the date the Magistrate Judge issued his report and recommendation, February 14, and the date Guthrie's final deadline expired, May 24. According to documentation provided by Guthrie, his prison was on lockdown for a total of thirty days during that period. Guthrie had approximately sixty-six days to research, draft, edit, and file his objections - well in excess of the fourteen days the Magistrate Judge initially afforded him.
Specifically, Guthrie says the facility was on lockdown: February 12 to February 21; March 1; March 20 to March 27; April 26 to May 2; May 19; and May 20 to May 25. [DN 137-1; DN 142.] --------
Courts may excuse a litigant's failure to file timely objections to a magistrate's report and recommendation "in the interest of justice." Alspaugh v. McConnell, 643 F.3d 162, 166 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Kent v. Johnson, 821 F.2d 1220, 1223 (6th Cir. 1987)). In Alspaugh, the Sixth Circuit entertained a pro se litigant's untimely objections when the prisoner did not receive the report and recommendation until the deadline for objections, promptly moved for an extension of time, and filed objections before the district court adopted the report and recommendation. [Id.] Those circumstances are not present in this case. The Court does not know the precise date when Guthrie received the Magistrate Judge's report, but in any event, it was well in advance of the May 24 final deadline. See [DN 133 at 1.] And while Guthrie did indeed file multiple motions for extensions of time, he failed to take advantage of the additional time the Magistrate Judge afforded him. To date, Guthrie still has not filed any objections.
The Court is mindful that pro se filings "are held to a less stringent standard than those prepared by an attorney," Urbina v. Thoms, 270 F.3d 292, 295 (6th Cir. 2001), and a prison in lockdown surely does not make matters easier. Still, even according to his own timeline, Guthrie had ample opportunity to file objections to the Magistrate Judge's report. He failed to do so, and the interests of justice do not require the Court to excuse that failure. Guthrie's motion for an extension of time [DN 143] is DENIED.
It is so ordered.
/s/
Thomas B. Russell, Senior Judge
United States District Court
July 26, 2017 CC: Counsel of Record
Corey Guthrie, pro se