Opinion ID: 2718872
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Striking Mathis’s Objections to the RR

Text: Rule 72(b)(2) required Mathis to file and serve his written objections to the R&R no later than 14 days after the R&R was served on him. However, Rule 6(b)(1)(B) authorized the court, on Mathis’s motion, to extend the time for filing objections for good cause if Mathis had “failed to act because of excusable neglect.” “We review a district court’s determination of excusable neglect for 2 Case: 14-10605 Date Filed: 08/19/2014 Page: 3 of 7 abuse of discretion.” Advanced Estimating Sys., Inc. v. Riney, 130 F.3d 996, 997 (11th Cir. 1997). The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Mathis had failed to show any justification for the untimeliness of his objections because Mathis failed to file a motion as required for an after-the-fact extension under Rule 6(b)(1)(B) and because, by Mathis’s own account, his failure to turn his objections in on time resulted from his decision to wait for the objections to be typewritten, even though he knew handwritten objections were sufficient. The district court was therefore within its discretion to strike Mathis’s objections as untimely. See Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd., 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993) (considering “whether [the delay] was within the reasonable control of the movant” in determining whether it resulted from excusable neglect); see also Young v. City of Palm Bay, Fla., 358 F.3d 859, 863 (11th Cir. 2004) (“The district court has a range of options; and so long as the district court does not commit a clear error in judgment, we will affirm the district court’s decision.”).