1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER 

Page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MATTHEW G. SILVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTINE GREGOIRE, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. C05-5731RJB

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

OBJECTIONS, TO STAY

PROCEEDINGS AND TO

STRIKE/RE-NOTE ORDERS

AND GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

CONTINUE JOINT STATUS

REPORT FILING DATE 

This matter comes before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File

Objections, to Stay Proceedings and to Strike/Re-note Orders (Dkt. 127) and the defendants’

Motion to Continue Joint Status Report Filing Date (Dkt. 123). The Court has considered the

pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motions and the remainder of the file herein.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 17, 2006, the defendants moved for summary judgment. Dkt. 87. Mr. Silva

requested more time to respond to the motion, and his request was granted. Dkt. 90; Dkt. 93. Mr.

Silva’s response was due on or before February 2, 2007. Dkt. 93 at 2. No response has been filed,

Case 3:05-cv-05731-RJB Document 131 Filed 05/08/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER 

Page 2

and Mr. Silva has not objected to the Report and Recommendation.

On April 25, 2007, the Court re-noted the Report and Recommendation on the

defendants’ motion for consideration on May 11, 2007, noting that “Mr. Silva may require more

time to respond or object.” Dkt. 126 at 2. The plaintiff now moves for an extension of time to file

objections, a stay of these proceedings, and other relief. Dkt. 127. The defendants have

responded. Dkt. 129. No reply was filed.

The defendants have also moved for an extension of the deadline for filing the joint status

report in this case, contending that filing of the joint status report should not be required until the

Court rules on the pending motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 87). Dkt. 123 at 1. Mr. Silva has

not responded to the motion.

II. DISCUSSION

A. THE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

First, the plaintiff seeks “an extension of time for plaintiff to file objections to each nondispositive order entered by the Magistrate Judge in this case since November, 2006.” Dkt. 127 at

1. The plaintiff offers no legal basis for objecting to any orders issued by Magistrate Judge

Strombom. In addition, the plaintiff does not identify any orders of which he seeks

reconsideration. The motion should be denied in this respect.

Second, the plaintiff seeks “an extension of time for plaintiff to file objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation denying plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief.”

Dkt. 127 at 1. Mr. Silva asks that the Court grant an extension of thirty days, commencing upon

Mr. Silva’s receipt of his legal files. Dkt. 127 at 1. The plaintiff also requests more time to

respond to the defendants’ dispositive motion. Id. at 2. These matters are currently noted for

consideration on May 11, 2007. Dkt. 124; Dkt. 126. According to the defendants, Mr. Silva has

had opted not to access his legal files pursuant to the policies of procedures of the Department of

Corrections, whereby the plaintiff is permitted to have one box of legal materials in his cell. Dkt.

129-2 at 15-16. The defendants ask that the Court not delay a ruling on pending motions but

allege no prejudice stemming from such a delay. The Court should re-note the pending Reports

and Recommendations to allow the plaintiff more time to file objections, but the plaintiff is

Case 3:05-cv-05731-RJB Document 131 Filed 05/08/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER 

Page 3

cautioned that the Court will not entertain future delays for reasons within the plaintiff’s control.

Third, the plaintiff asks the Court to “[s]tay these proceedings until the plaintiff is able to

obtain his legal files.” Dkt. 127 at 1. Mr. Silva does not demonstrate that he is unable to obtain his

legal files or that a stay is warranted. The motion should be denied in this respect.

Fourth, the plaintiff asks the Court to “[s]trike and/or re-note all orders the Magistrate

Judge has entered during the pendency of plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of recusal.” Dkt.

127 at 1. This request is not justified by the record or by the plaintiff’s allegations and should be

denied.

B. JOINT STATUS REPORT DEADLINE

It appears that the plaintiff would benefit from an extension of time to file the joint status

report. See Local Rule CR 7(b)(2) (“If a party fails to file papers in opposition to a motion,

such failure may be considered by the court as an admission that the motion has merit.”). The

Court should grant the motion.

III. ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Objections, to Stay

Proceedings and to Strike/Re-note Orders (Dkt. 127) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in

part as provided herein. The Reports and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge

Karen L. Strombom (Dkt. 118 and Dkt. 124) are RE-NOTED for June 8, 2007. The defendants’

Motion to Continue Joint Status Report Filing Date (Dkt. 123) is GRANTED. The joint status

report shall be filed on or before June 29, 2007.

The Clerk of the Court is instructed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel

of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

DATED this 8th day of May, 2007.AROBERT J. BRYAN

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05731-RJB Document 131 Filed 05/08/07 Page 3 of 3