Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determin ed that thi s opinio n should not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40091

ROGER S TE VEN M CCART Y, P eti ti on er - A p p ell a n t v. RI CK T HALER, DI RECT OR, T EXAS DEP ART M ENT OF CRI M I NAL J U S T IC E , C O R R E C T IO N A L IN S T IT U T IO N S D IV IS IO N ,
R espon den t - A pp el l ee
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he Sout her n D i st r i c t of Texas U SD C N o. 5: 07- C V

- 60

B ef ore R E AV L E Y , P R A D O , an d O W E N , C i rcui t Ju dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * W e revi ew t h e di st rict co u rt ' s or der den yi n g P et i t i on er R oger Steven M cC a rty' s seco n d m oti on f or a n ex ten sion of ti m e (" M oti on ") to fi l e ob j ection s to t h e m agis t rat e j u dg e' s r eport an d recom m en da t i on ( " R & R " )

. Th e di st ri ctcourt h as g ran t ed a C ert i f

i cat e of A pp eal abil i t y as t o w h et h er t h e di st ri ctcourtabu sed i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n d e n y i n gPe t i t i o n e r ' s Mo t i o n . F i n d i n gn o a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n , we A F F I R M. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 30, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-40091 Document: 00511097610 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/30/2010N o. 09- 40091

2 Pe t i t i o n e rf

i l e d h i s p e t i t i o n f

o r wr i t o f

h a b e a s c o r p u s p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U. S

. C. § 2 25 4, o n M ay1 7, 2 007
. The m ag i s t r at e j udg e i s s ue d a n R& R t o di s m i s s t he
c a s e o n A u g u s t 1 8 , 2 0 0 8
. P e t i t i o n e r r e c e i v e d t h e R &R t wo d a y s l a t e r . T h e R &R st at ed t hat Pet i t i oner had t en days t o f i l e any obj ec t i ons . O n A ugust 25, 2008, t h e courtrec ei ved P et i t i on er' s f i rstm ot i on forex t en si on of ti m e, w h i ch t h e court gr ant e d i n pa r t , g r ant i ng Pet i t i on er u nt i lSe pt e m be r 8 , 2 00 8, t o f i l e a ny obj ec t i ons . The c our ts t at ed i n t hat o rd er t hat no f urt herex t ens i ons w oul d be pe r m i t t e d. On Sep t e m be r1 6, 2 00 8, Pe t i t i o ne r f i l e d t he i ns t antM o t i o n, s e e ki ng a d d i t i o n a lt i m e t o f

i l e o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e R&R. P eti ti on er a ve rs th a t t h e p ri son i n w h i ch h e w a s l oca ted w e n t i n to i ts

" b i a n n u a l l o c k d o wn s h a k e d o wn " o n S e p t e m b e r 2 , 2 0 0 8 , s i x d a y s b e f o r e t he
c o u r t's d e a d lin e fo ro b je c tio n s . P e tit io n e r f u r th e ra v e r s t h a t H u r r ic a n e I k e h it
s ho r t l y af

t e rthe l o c kdo w n, kno c ki ng o utpo w e r i n t he fac i l i t y. Bec aus e o f t he al l eged l ockd ow n in h is pri son an d the sub sequ en t ef fect s of H u rri can e I ke, Pet i t i onerave r s he w as unabl e to a ccess t he pr i so n' s l ibr ar y s ys t em orl egal
m at e r i al s f

r o m Se pt e m be r2 , 20 08 , unt i l at l e as t Se pt e m be r 20 , 20 08 , w he n t he l oc kdow n ended and pow er w as r es t or ed. C ons equent l y, Pet i t i oner ar gues t hat th e d i stri ct c o u rt de n i ed h i m "m ea n i n gfu lacce ss to th e cou rts" by refu sing to gran thi s M ot i on f

or an extensi on of

t i m e. R u l e 6 (b) of t h e F ed era lR u l es o f C i vilP roce d u re sta tes i n releva n t pa rt: (b) E xtend i n g T i m e. ( 1) I n G en eral

. W he n a n a c tm ayo r m us t b e do ne w i t hi n a sp ecif i ed ti m e, th e cou rt m ay , f or good cause, ext en d the t i m e:

. . . ( B) o n m o t i o n m ad e a f t e r t he t i m e ha s e xp i r e d i f t he p a r ty fa ile d to a c t b e c a u s e o f e x c u s a b le n e g le c t. F ED . R. C IV . P. 6 (b ) ( e m p h a sis a d d e d ). T h e perm i ssive l an gu age of R u l e 6(b) sh ow s that a n y gran t of an ext en si on o f tim e fo rw h e n a n a c t m u s t b e d o n e fa lls to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t's d is c r e tio n . S ee Case: 09-40091 Document: 00511097610 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/30/2010N o. 09- 40091

Apparently , neither the prisonlo ckdown nor the subsequent poweroutage pr evente d 1 Petitio ner from filin g his secon d Motion for ext ension of ti me, a s thecourt re ceived th e Motion a day befo re the all eged lockdown ende d but ei ght days after the extende d dea d li ne for 3 G eis er m a n v. Ma cD o n a ld , 8 9 3 F .2 d 7 8 7 , 7 9 3 (5 t h C ir . 1 9 9 0 ) ( r e v ie w in gc o u r t 's den i alof

an ext en si on of

t i m e un der R u l e 6 (b) f or abu se of

di scr et i on )

. M oreover, an y gran tof an ext en si on t h at i s f i l ed aft er t h e t i m e f

or a r espon se has exp i red
m a y o n ly b e g r a n te d u p o n a fin d in go f e x c u s a b le n e g le c t. S ee F ED . R. C IV . P. 6(b) ( 1) ( B )

. E ven i f good cause an d excu sabl e neg l ectare s h ow n , i t non et h el ess rem a i n s a q u estion of th e cou rt' s d i scre ti on w h e th e r to gra n t an y m oti on to
e x te n d tim e u n d e rR u le 6 (b ). S e e L u ja n v . Na t'l Wild life F e d 'n , 4 9 7 U
. S. 871, 8 9 4 -9 8 , 1 1 0 S

. C t. 3 1 7 7 , 3 1 9 1 -9 3 (19 9 0 ). W e n ote th a t " ex cu sa b l e n eg l ect" i s an " e la s tic con cep t. " Pi one e rI nv. S ervs . Co. v. B run sw i ck A ssoc s ., 5 0 7 U .S . 3 8 0 , 3 9 2 , 1 1 3 S

. C t. 1 4 8 9 , 1 4 9 6 (19 9 3 ). The de t e r m i nat i o n o f w hat i s " e xc us ab l e " i s " atb o t t o m a n e qui t ab l e o ne , t ak i ng a ccou n t of

allreleva n t ci rcu m stan ces su rrou n d i n g th e p a rty' s om i ssion

. " I d. at 395, 113 S. C t
. at1498 ;se e also Un i t ed S t ate s v. C l ark , 51 F
. 3d 42, 44 ( 5th C i r. 199 5 ) (a p p l yi n g t h e P i on eer st an da rd of " excusa bl e neg l ect " t o cr i m i n alcases in v o lv in gR u le 4 (b )); K yl e v. C ampb el lS ou

p C o. , 28 F. 3d 928, 931 ( 9t h C i r . 1994) ( appl yi ng P i on eert o Rul e 6 (b) ) ( c i t e d a ppr o vi ngl y i n C l ark , 5 1 F .3 d a t 4 4 ). In t h e i n st an tcase, w e f i n d n ei t h er good cau se nor excusab l e neg l ect , nor do w e o t he r w i s e f

i nd t hatt he di s t r i c t c o u rt a bu sed i t s di s c r e t i o n de nyi ng Pet i t i oner ' s M ot i on. Ass um i ng Pet i t i oner ' s aver m ent s t o b e t r ue r egar di ng a pri son l ockd ow n an d su bse que ntpo w e rf ai l u re, P et i t i on er neverthel ess h ad f rom A u gu st 20 , 20 0 8 to S ep tem b er 2 , 20 0 8 to acce ss th e p ri son l i b ra ry sys tem s. In ad di t i on , t h e di st ri ctcourtnoted t h at H u rri can e Ike di d n othi t t h e T exas coast unti lSept em ber12, 2008. Acc or di ngl y, t her e w a s no po w erout age c ause d by H ur r i c ane I ke t h atpr e ve nt e d Pe t i t i o ne r f r o m f i ni s hi ng hi s o bj e c t i o ns b y t he
c our t ' s deadl i ne o f

Sept em ber8, 2008. 1 Case: 09-40091 Document: 00511097610 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/30/2010N o. 09- 40091

obj ectio ns. Th erefo re, eve n if P etitione r h ad vali d groun ds to seek a dditio nalti me , he was uni mped e df

r o mdo i n gs ob e f

o r eth ee xp ir ati o no f

th ec o urt ' ss e c o n de xt e n d e dd e a dline

. Petitio ner non etheless faile d to do so. The district co urt stated the foll owing regardingP etitioner's obje ction s to the R&R 2 that P etitione r included as an appen dixto his "Motio n to E xpand the Rec ord": Petitio ner basically reha shes th e sa me argu ments raise d inhis Responseto Defendants' Motionfor Summary Ju dgment. Th ese i ssues wereade quatelyan d corre ctlyan alyzed byMagistrat e Ju d geSaldan a, wh ose findin gs of fact and conclusions of law were a dopted bythis C ourt . The Court a gain consi dered the issues when it deni ed P etitione r's motion to alter or a mend the ju dgment. Bec auseP etitione r faile d to raiseany new argu ments in his out-of-time motion s for review of the R&R , and b ecau se th e di strict court in fact consi dered Petitio ner' s arguments despite them beingout of time, we fin d any purported abuseof discretion to b e h armle ss erro r. 4 M o r e o ve r , t he di s t r i c tc o ur t e xp l i c i t l y s t at e d t hati t w o ul d g r antno ad di t i on alext en si on s of t i m e af

t er gran tin g P et i t i on er' s f i rstm ot i on f

or ad di t i o nalt i m e . Des pi t e t hi s , a nd r at he r t han at t e m ptt o f i l e o bj e c t i o ns t o t he
m ag i s t r ate j u dg e' s R& R onc e t he l o c kdo w n was o ve r a nd p o w e r w as r e s t o r e d, P e tit io n e rfile d a s e c o n d M o tio n s e e k in ga n a d d itio n a l th ir ty d a y s t o p r e p a r e h is
o b je c tio n s . P e tit io n e rth e n file d n o s u b s ta n tiv e o b je c tio n s t o th e R & R u n til O c t obe r 20, 2008, a m ont h af t erpow er( and pre sum abl y l i br ar y pr i vi l ege s) w as rest ored. Th ese c i rcum st an ces do not so m u ch show excusab l e neg l ectas t h ey

2 show a party seeki n g t o sethi s ow n dead l i n es. Pet i t i o ne ra l s o a r gue s t hathe a s s um e d t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ' s o r de r g r ant i ng h i s f i rstm ot i on f

or ext en sio n o f tim e contai n ed a typograp h i calerr or, w h i ch
s h o u ld h a v e a llo w e d h im u n til S e p te m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 8 t o fi l e o b je c tio n s . T h is
ar gum e nti s w ho l l y w i t ho utm e r i t
. The di s t r i c t c o ur t ' s de ad l i ne w as c l e ari n t he
o r de r . Al lo t he rm o t i o ns de ni e d. AF F I RMED. Case: 09-40091 Document: 00511097610 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/30/2010