Opinion
Civil Action RDB-20-3410
01-14-2022
ANTHONY C. GUNTER, Plaintiff, v. ALUTIIQ ADVANCED SECURITY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Richard D. Bennett United States District Judge
Presently Pending before the Court is the Defendant's Motion for Sanctions and Dismissal (ECF No. 50). Magistrate Judge Coulson has issued a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 53) on this Motion to which the Defendant has filed a Response (ECF No. 54). On January 14, 2022, this Court issued a Memorandum Order (ECF No. 55) ordering that the Defendant Alutiiq Advanced Security Solutions, LLC is permitted to engage a forensic expert to analyze the subject telephones addressed in the briefing in this matter, including the Plaintiff's telephone. As stated in the Memorandum Order, following a 45-day period of discovery, this Court will schedule an evidentiary hearing with respect to the allegedly fraudulent messages relied upon by the pro se Plaintiff Anthony C. Gunter.
Less than two hours after the Clerk of this Court docketed the Memorandum Order (ECF No. 55), the Clerk docketed Plaintiff's Motion in Opposition to Defendants Opposition to the Judges Report and Recommendations (ECF No. 56.) The filing was received in the night box of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland on January 13, 2022. (Envelope, ECF No. 56-1.) While the Motion itself is not dated, the Certificate of Service is dated January 12, 2022. (ECF No. 56 at 4.) As Judge Coulson noted in his Report and Recommendation, “failure to file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge contained in the foregoing report within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this report may result in the waiver of any right to a de novo review of the determinations contained in the report.” (ECF No. 53 at 11.) Indeed, Local Rule 301.5(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 require that any objections to a Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation must be served within 14 days after a copy of the report and recommendation is served on the party wishing to object. Judge Coulson issued his Report and Recommendation on December 28, 2021. Under the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties had until January 11, 2022 to object. Plaintiff's objection is therefore untimely.
However, because this Court has concluded that it will “receive further evidence” on this matter, Plaintiff's objection to the Report and Recommendation will be considered at the time of the evidentiary hearing in this case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with the deadlines set by this Court may result in adverse consequences up to and including Dismissal of this action. See, e.g., Sanders v. Enos Contractors, No. ELH-13-2590, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162668, at *3 (D. Md. Dec. 3, 2015) (“Although pro se litigants are given liberal treatment by courts, even pro se litigants are expected to comply with time requirements and other procedural rules without which effective judicial administration would be impossible”) (internal citations omitted).
To the extent Plaintiff objects to further discovery on Defendant's Motion for Sanctions and Dismissal, it is HEREBY ORDERED this 14th day of January 2022, that Plaintiff's objection is OVERRULED.