ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT

ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's "Motion to Alter (Amend) Judgment," and accompanying exhibits. Dkt. #27-28. Plaintiff, currently incarcerated in the Snohomish County Jail, filed a civil rights claim under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against defendant, a Washington State Department of Corrections Officer, alleging Symons used excessive force against plaintiff while plaintiff was incarcerated at the Monroe Correctional Complex. Dkt #5 at 2-4. Defendant later moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff had failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Dkt. #14. On August 5, 2019, the Honorable Michelle Peterson, United States Magistrate Judge, issued a Report and Recommendation finding that plaintiff had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and recommending that his claims be dismissed without prejudice. Dkt. #21. Parties were required to file objections within twenty-one days of the filing of the Report and Recommendation. Id. at 8-9. Plaintiff did not file any objections and on September 20, 2019 this Court adopted Magistrate Judge Peterson's Report and Recommendation, granting defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiff's claims without prejudice for failure to exhaust. Dkt. #24.

Plaintiff now asks the Court to reverse its adoption of the Report and Recommendation and allow him to file an objection. See Dkt. #27-28. Plaintiff acknowledges that he failed to file a timely objection, which he attributes to "having too many cases — about a score — to keep track of between this court and the 9th Circuit court," and to his poor health. Dkt. #27 at 1. Plaintiff implies that his health conditions make it challenging for him to comply with deadlines. Id.

Plaintiff does not offer any legal basis for reopening this matter following his failure to timely object. Nor does he indicate what procedural or substantive objections he would raise were the Court to reopen this matter. The Court finds that plaintiff has not satisfied the standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) (motion for extension of time), LCR 7(h) (motion for reconsideration), or Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (motion to amend judgment). The motion is therefore DENIED.