United States District Court, Southern District of New York
May 15, 2003
IN RE: REZULIN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lewis A. Kaplan, United States District Judge
PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 148
(Objections to Report and Recommendation — Garza)
On April 18, 2003, Magistrate Judge Katz recommended that plaintiffs' motion to remand be denied and specifically pointed out that any objections were due within 10 days. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); FED.R.CIV.P. 72(b). No objections having been filed, the Court entered an order denying the motion on May 12, 2003.
The undersigned today received objections on behalf of the plaintiffs which indicate that they were mailed on May 9, 2003. Thus far, no objections have been filed.
Section 636(b)(1)(C) and Rule 72(b) require the filing of objections "[w]ithin ten days after being served with" a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. Rule 6(e) extends that period by three days where, as here, a party is required to do an act "within a prescribed period after the service of a notice or other paper" that is served by mail. Thus, plaintiffs had thirteen days from April 18, 2003 within which to file objections. That period would have ended on May 11, 2003 but for the fact that that was a Sunday. Pursuant to Rule 6(a), the last day for filing became Monday, May 12, 2003. The fact that the objections were mailed before the filing deadline is of no moment, "[F]iling is not deemed complete on mailing" and "is met only on actual receipt of the documents" by the clerk's office. 1 Moore's Federal Practice § 5.30[B] (3d ed. 2000). There is no analog in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to Fed.R.App.P. 25(a)(2)(B).
As no objections were timely filed, plaintiffs' objections are overruled.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.