Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Spiva, 3:15-cr-169(2) (2019)

Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio Number: infdco20190701c94 Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 27, 2019
Summary: ORDER STRIKING OBJECTIONS MICHAEL R. MERZ , Magistrate Judge . This 2255 case is before the Court on Defendant's Objections (ECF No. 170) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (ECF No. 168). The Report was filed and served on May 30, 2019. As Defendant was advised, this made his deadline for filing objections June 17, 2019. Because of the mailbox rule in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), Defendant's Objections would have been timely if deposited in the prison mail
More

ORDER STRIKING OBJECTIONS

This § 2255 case is before the Court on Defendant's Objections (ECF No. 170) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (ECF No. 168).

The Report was filed and served on May 30, 2019. As Defendant was advised, this made his deadline for filing objections June 17, 2019. Because of the mailbox rule in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988), Defendant's Objections would have been timely if deposited in the prison mail system by that date. The Objections were not received at the Court until June 27, 2019, ten days past the due date and three days after Judge Rose adopted the Report and dismissed the case. Although Defendant included a Certificate of Service in the Objections, the dates in it are blank and it is unsigned (PageID 969). In fact the Objections themselves are undated and unsigned (PageID 949).

Accordingly, the Objections are untimely and are hereby STRICKEN.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer