Filed: Jan. 20, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 20, 2015
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge. On de novo review, the Court adopts the proposed findings and recommendation, No. 38, as supplemented and overrules Payton's objections, No. 39 & 40. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). The statutory bar is clear, and neither of the narrow exceptions articulated in Gibson v. Weber, 431 F.3d 339 , 341 (8th Cir. 2005) applies. Payton had an opportunity to submit documents justifying his untimely appeal, but didn't. No. 28-1 at 3-4, 11-12. And he doesn't argue
Summary: ORDER D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge. On de novo review, the Court adopts the proposed findings and recommendation, No. 38, as supplemented and overrules Payton's objections, No. 39 & 40. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). The statutory bar is clear, and neither of the narrow exceptions articulated in Gibson v. Weber, 431 F.3d 339 , 341 (8th Cir. 2005) applies. Payton had an opportunity to submit documents justifying his untimely appeal, but didn't. No. 28-1 at 3-4, 11-12. And he doesn't argue ..
More
ORDER
D.P. MARSHALL, Jr., District Judge.
On de novo review, the Court adopts the proposed findings and recommendation, No. 38, as supplemented and overrules Payton's objections, No. 39 & 40. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). The statutory bar is clear, and neither of the narrow exceptions articulated in Gibson v. Weber, 431 F.3d 339, 341 (8th Cir. 2005) applies. Payton had an opportunity to submit documents justifying his untimely appeal, but didn't. No. 28-1 at 3-4, 11-12. And he doesn't argue that any official thwarted his attempt to provide that documentation. Defendants' motion for summary judgment, No. 26, is granted. The Doe Defendants are dismissed without prejudice. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). Payton's request, No. 41, is denied.
So Ordered.
