PULLINS v. INDIANAPOLIS STAR INC.

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

PIERRE Q. PULLINS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 1:20-cv-01312-JPH-MPB ) INDIANAPOLIS STAR INC., ) GANNETT INC., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION

Plaintiff, Pierre Pullins, has filed an objection to Magistrate Judge Brookman's order denying an extension of time to file an amended complaint. Dkt. 12. He argues that extensions are customarily denied only after a warning that no more extensions will be given. Id. at 2. The objection will be sustained only if the magistrate judge's ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Domanus v. Lewicki, 742 F.3d 290, 295 (7th Cir. 2014) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)). Mr. Pullins does not cite any authority requiring a warning that no more extensions will be given. See dkt. 12. Moreover, as Magistrate Judge Brookman explained, the motion for extension of time was untimely. Dkt. 9 at 1. Mr. Pullins had been given through August 8, 2020 to file an amended complaint, dkt. 7, but he did not file his motion for extension of time until August 24, 2020, dkt. 8. Mr. Pullins also does not contest the other reasons why Magistrate Judge Brookman denied the extension of time. See dkt. 9. Mr. Pullins's objection is therefore OVERRULED. Dkt. [12]. This case shall remain closed on the docket. Because Mr. Pullins received the order denying the motion for extension of time in a format that had to be "piece[d] together in order to read it," dkt. 12 at 1, the clerk shall include a copy of that order, dkt. 9, with Mr. Pullins's copy of this order. SO ORDERED. Date: 10/20/2020 Sjamu Patrick hawlove James Patrick Hanlon United States District Judge eq gs Southern District of Indiana Distribution: PIERRE Q. PULLINS 6120 Westlake Dr. N. Apt. B Indianapolis, IN 46224