Woods v. City of Lancaster Texas et al, No. 3:2021cv03027 - Document 20 (N.D. Tex. 2022)
Court Description: Order Accepting Findings and Recommendations: The court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. The court denies Plaintiff's 13 motion for an extension under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) as a result of his failure to demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause for the untimely notice of appeal. (Ordered by Judge Sam A. Lindsay on 11/7/2022) (svc)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Woods v. City of Lancaster Texas et al Doc. 20 Case 3:21-cv-03027-L-BK Document 20 Filed 11/07/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 63 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION STEPHEN LAMAR WOODS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF LANCASTER, et al., Defendants. § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:21-CV-3027-L-BK Court of Appeals No. 22-10501 ORDER On October 14, 2022, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 19) was entered, recommending that the court deny pro se Plaintiff’s May 5, 2022 motion for an extension under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) (Doc. 13) as a result of his failure to demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause for the untimely notice of appeal. No objections to the Report were filed as of the date of this order, and the deadline for filing objections has expired. Having considered the motion, record in this case, and Report, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court denies Plaintiff’s motion for an extension under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(5) (Doc. 13) as a result of his failure to demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause for the untimely notice of appeal. It is so ordered this 7th day of November, 2022. _________________________________ Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge Order – Solo Page Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
