Opinion ID: 3032527
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Untimely Motion to Object

Text: Finally, Gary alleges that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to object to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation out of time. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 45(b) (standard of review: “the court on its own may extend the time”) (emphasis added). Rule 45(b) provides that a court “may” extend a time period “if the party failed to act because of excusable neglect.” The magistrate judge -9- filed the report and recommendation on March 7, 2002. Once filed, Gary had ten days to file objections to the report and recommendation. United States v. Looking,156 F.3d 803, 809 n.7 (8th Cir. 1998) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)). Gary did not object within this ten day window. Further, it is undisputed that on April 2, 2002, during a pretrial conference, Gary represented that he would not seek review of, or object to, the report and recommendation. As a result, on April 3, 2002, well beyond the standard ten days required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the district court adopted the report and recommendation and denied the motion to suppress evidence. In light of these events, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Gary’s motion to object out of time.