Wiltz v. New York University
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-03406
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Wiltz v. New York University, Judge Woods denied Randall Wiltz’s request for more time to object to a magistrate judge’s report.
Randall Wiltz, who represented himself, was denied additional time to object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation; the defendants’ motions to dismiss were not decided by this order.
What happened
In Wiltz v. New York University, Randall Wiltz asked for more time to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation concerning defendants’ motions to dismiss.
Wiltz requested an extension until January 23, 2020, explaining that he had traveled to be with ill family members and lacked access to resources needed to prepare a complete response. The court calculated that his deadline was January 13, 2020, after adding time for mailing and a weekend.
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied Wiltz’s request because Wiltz would still have had eleven days to object after returning on January 2. The clerk was directed to mail Wiltz a copy of the order.
The detailed version
- Wiltz v. New York University · No. 1:19-cv-03406
- Gregory Woods
- Jan. 8, 2020
Background
The order addresses Randall Wiltz’s request for an extension of time to object to Magistrate Judge Aaron’s report and recommendation. The report recommended granting defendants’ motions to dismiss. This order does not decide those motions or the merits of the report and recommendation.
Request for an Extension
Wiltz asked for a two-week extension, until January 23, 2020, to submit points of clarification about the report. He stated that he had traveled to New Orleans to be with family members who were ill and required hospitalization. He also stated that he did not have access to all the resources needed to file a complete response. The request said that he expected to return to New York on January 2, 2020.
The court noted that Wiltz was a lawyer representing himself and therefore ordinarily was not entitled to the special consideration sometimes given to people representing themselves. The court also calculated the objection deadline under the applicable timing rules. Because Wiltz was served by mail on December 26, 2019, he received additional time, and because the resulting seventeen-day period ended on a Sunday, he received one more day. The court concluded that the deadline for objections was January 13, 2020.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods denied Wiltz’s application for an extension of time. The court reasoned that, even though Wiltz had been out of town until January 2, he would still have had eleven days to object after returning. The clerk was directed to mail Wiltz a copy of the order by first-class and certified mail.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.