Filed: Mar. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 08, 2019
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION ABDUL K. KALLON , District Judge . The magistrate judge filed a report on January 22, 2019, recommending the defendant's special report be treated as a motion for summary judgment and that the motion be granted. Doc. 56. The magistrate judge further recommended the plaintiff's motion for appointment of a medical expert be denied. Id. at 36. The magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to file specific written objections within fourteen days. Id. Thereafter
Summary: MEMORANDUM OPINION ABDUL K. KALLON , District Judge . The magistrate judge filed a report on January 22, 2019, recommending the defendant's special report be treated as a motion for summary judgment and that the motion be granted. Doc. 56. The magistrate judge further recommended the plaintiff's motion for appointment of a medical expert be denied. Id. at 36. The magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to file specific written objections within fourteen days. Id. Thereafter,..
More
MEMORANDUM OPINION
ABDUL K. KALLON, District Judge.
The magistrate judge filed a report on January 22, 2019, recommending the defendant's special report be treated as a motion for summary judgment and that the motion be granted. Doc. 56. The magistrate judge further recommended the plaintiff's motion for appointment of a medical expert be denied. Id. at 36. The magistrate judge advised the parties of their right to file specific written objections within fourteen days. Id. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved for a 60-day extension of time to file objections. Doc. 57. Finding the requested time excessive, the magistrate judge granted the plaintiff until February 28, 2019, to file her objections. Doc. 57 & 58.
On February 26, 2019,1 the plaintiff filed a second motion for extension of time to file objections. Doc. 59. She requests an additional 90 days based on general complaints about the prison's inefficient mailroom and copy machine. She also declares that her jailhouse lawyer has been transferred and her new jailhouse lawyer will need the additional time to familiarize herself with the case. Finally, the plaintiff makes vague assertions indicating she recently began seeking an "expert" for whom she is preparing questions. The plaintiff's second motion for extension of time to file objections, doc. 59, is due to be denied. This action has been pending for three years, and the plaintiff has known of the need for an expert witness at least since June 2018. See doc. 33 at 13-17. Moreover, the plaintiff's preference for a jailhouse lawyer does not justify further delay (particularly when the record shows that plaintiff is literate and has a good understanding of her case).
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, including the report and recommendation, the magistrate judge's report is hereby ADOPTED and the recommendation is ACCEPTED. Accordingly, the court finds there is no genuine issue of material fact, and defendant's motion for summary judgment is due to be granted. The plaintiff's motion for appointment of a medical expert, doc 44, is due to be denied.
