United States District Court, D. Minnesota
TONYA UDOH and EMEM UDOH, individually, and on behalf of their minor children, K.K.W., and K.C.W., Plaintiffs,
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES; CHARLES E. JOHNSON; DONOTHAN BARTLEY; ANN NORTON; DANIEL E. JOHNSON; CATRINA BLAIR; CITY OF MAPLE GROVE; CITY OF MAPLE GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT; MELISSA PARKER; CITY OF PLYMOUTH; CITY OF PLYMOUTH POLICE DEPARTMENT; MOLLY LYNCH, KELVIN PREGLER; INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 279; JOANNE WALLEN; KAREN WEGERSON; ANN MOCK; CORNERHOUSE; PATRICIA HARMON; BILL KONCAR; GRACE W. RAY; and LINDA THOMPSON, Defendants.
and Emem Udoh, pro se.
Frederick J. Argir, MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE,
for defendants Minnesota Department of Human Services and
Charles E. Johnson.
Christiana M. Martenson and Daniel D. Kaczor, HENNEPIN COUNTY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, for defendants Donothan Bartley, Ann
Norton, Daniel E. Engstrom,  Catrina Blair, and Linda Thompson.
C. Midolo and Paul D. Reuvers, IVERSON REUVERS CONDON, for
defendants City of Maple Grove, City of Maple Grove Police
Department, Melissa Parker, City of Plymouth, City of
Plymouth Police Department, Molly Lynch, and Kelvin Pregler.
P. Edison and Michael J. Waldspurger, RUPP, ANDERSON, SQUIRES
& WALDSPURGER, P.A., for defendants Independent School
District No. 279, Joanne Wallen, Karen Wegerson, and Ann
R. Marti and Lauren O. Roso, DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP, for
defendants CornerHouse, Patricia Harmon, Bill Koncar, and
Patrick J. Schiltz United States District Judge
matter is before the Court on two matters:
plaintiffs Emem and Tonya Udoh move for permission to file an
objection to Magistrate Judge Steven E. Rau's Report
& Recommendation (R&R) of July 26, 2017,
exceeds the word limit imposed by the local rules. Local Rule
72.2(c)(1) limits objections to 3, 500 words. The Udohs ask
for permission to file separate objections against each
defendant or a combined objection against all the defendants
that will not exceed 17, 500 words. ECF No. 144 at 2.
request is denied. The Udohs have already filed hundreds of
pages of pleadings, motions, briefs, and the like, and the
Court can review every one of those pages, including every
page of the briefs filed with Judge Rau. An objection to an
R&R is not supposed to be a vehicle for
“relitigat[ing] the entire content of the hearing
before the magistrate judge by submitting papers to a
district court which are nothing more than a rehashing of the
same arguments and positions taken in the original papers
submitted to the Magistrate Judge.” Smith v.
Padula, 444 F.Supp.2d 531, 535 (D.S.C. 2006) (quoting
Camardo v. Gen. Motors Hourly-Rate Emps. Pension
Plan, 806 F.Supp. 380, 382 (W.D.N.Y. 1992)). Instead,
the objection is supposed to concisely point out the mistakes
made by the magistrate judge in the R&R. The Udohs can do
that within the word limits prescribed by Local Rule
the Udohs appear to move (in the form of a “Proposed
Order”) for an extension of the filing deadline.
See ECF No. 145. Typically, a party has 14 days to
object to an R&R “after being served with a copy of
the recommended disposition.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2).
The Udohs received a copy of the R&R by mail on July 31,
2017. See ECF No. 144 at 1. They request an
extension of the filing deadline to September 15, 2017. The
Court will grant this request in part and deny it in part.
The Udohs may have an extension to file their objection, but
only until August 28, 2017, four weeks after they received a
copy of the R&R in the mail. Again, the task for the
Udohs is not to rebrief all of the issues addressed by Judge
Rau, but instead merely to identify what they believe to be
his errors and to concisely describe why they believe he was
mistaken. The Udohs may incorporate their previously filed
briefs by reference to whatever extent they wish.
on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and
proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiffs' request for permission to exceed the word
limit [ECF No. 144] when they file an objection to ...