Opinion ID: 760645
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: 6 Rhodes's request for additional time in which to file her objections appears to have been based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b), which permits a court, in its discretion, to enlarge the period allowed for acts required to be done within a specified time. We review decisions under this rule for abuse of discretion. Smith on Behalf of Smith v. Severn, 129 F.3d 419, 424 (7th Cir.1997). Under an abuse of discretion standard, the proper inquiry is not how the reviewing court would have ruled if it had been considering the case in the first place, but rather, whether any reasonable person could agree with the district court. United States v. Magana, 118 F.3d 1173, 1183 (7th Cir.1997) (internal quotations omitted). 7 The Seventh Circuit has repeatedly emphasized the wide discretion district court judges enjoy in controlling their dockets, as well as the importance of enforcing deadlines. See Spears v. City of Indianapolis, 74 F.3d 153, 157 (7th Cir.1996) (A good judge sets deadlines, and the judge has a right to assume that deadlines will be honored. The flow of cases through a busy district court is aided not hindered, by adherence to deadlines.); Reales v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 84 F.3d 993, 996 (7th Cir.1996) ([Judges] are entitled--indeed they must--enforce deadlines. Necessarily, they must have substantial discretion as they manage their dockets.); Smith on Behalf of Smith v. Severn, 129 F.3d 419, 424-25 (7th Cir.1997) (quoting Spears ); Gonzalez v. Ingersoll Milling Machine Co., 133 F.3d 1025, 1030 (7th Cir.1998) (District Court judges, because of the very nature of the duties and responsibilities accompanying their position, possess great authority to manage their caseload. (internal quotations omitted)). These cases demonstrate that an appellate court should ordinarily defer to a district court's rulings on motions for additional time. 8 Although this case does not involve an untimely request, repeated delays, or prior failures to meet deadlines, we cannot say that Judge McDade abused his discretion in enforcing the deadline. The fact that Rhodes is proceeding pro se does not change this conclusion. Pro se litigants are not exempt from the rules. Members v. Paige, 140 F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir.1998). As long as the litigant is informed of the consequences of a failure to make a timely objection, a court may enforce the ten-day deadline provided to object to a magistrate judge's ruling. Provident Bank v. Manor Steel Corp., 882 F.2d 258 (7th Cir.1989). Rhodes was fully informed of the deadline and the consequences of missing it. Accordingly, we cannot say that Judge McDade abused his discretion in denying the request for an extension. 9 AFFIRMED.