BLANTON v. U.S., 3:13-CV-774-L. (2015)
Court: District Court, N.D. Texas
Number: infdco20150624e91
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 23, 2015
Summary: ORDER SAM A. LINDSAY , District Judge . Before the court is Plaintiff's motion for a 90-day extension to appeal the judgment entered in this case (Doc. 95), filed April 28, 2015. On May 11, 2015, Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez entered Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report") (Doc. 97), recommending that the court construe Plaintiff's motion as a notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) and deny as moot his requ
Summary: ORDER SAM A. LINDSAY , District Judge . Before the court is Plaintiff's motion for a 90-day extension to appeal the judgment entered in this case (Doc. 95), filed April 28, 2015. On May 11, 2015, Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez entered Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report") (Doc. 97), recommending that the court construe Plaintiff's motion as a notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) and deny as moot his reque..
More
ORDER
SAM A. LINDSAY, District Judge.
Before the court is Plaintiff's motion for a 90-day extension to appeal the judgment entered in this case (Doc. 95), filed April 28, 2015. On May 11, 2015, Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez entered Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge ("Report") (Doc. 97), recommending that the court construe Plaintiff's motion as a notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) and deny as moot his request for a 90-day extension. No objections to the Report were filed.
After considering the motion, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court construes Plaintiff's motion as a notice of appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) and denies as moot his request for a 90-day extension to appeal. (Doc. 95).
It is so ordered.
Source: Leagle
