IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION AARON MICHAEL SHEETS PLAINTIFF V. CASE NO. 5:24-CV-5073 DETECTIVE JOHN MACKEY; DETECTIVE GUILLERMO SANCHEZ; DETECTIVE MORGAN ABERNATHY; and DETECTIVE JOSH COOKINHAM DEFENDANTS ORDER Now pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. 69) filed on July 3, 2025, by the Honorable Christy Comstock, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. The original deadline to file objections was July 21. No objections were filed by that date, so on July 22, the Court entered an Order (Doc. 70) adopting the R&R, granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 50), and dismissing the case. On July 28, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Request Additional Time to Respond to the Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 72). He explained that he needed an additional thirty days “to research,” to “purchase the appropriate amount of stamps that will be needed to mail the response in,” and to “try to understand how to proceed.” /d. On August 6, the Court granted Plaintiffs request, vacated the Judgment, and reopened the case. However, the Order granting the extension stated: “[T]he Court cautions Plaintiff that any such objections he wishes to file MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE COURT by no later than SEPTEMBER 5, 2025.” (Doc. 73) Plaintiff failed to file objections on September 5. Instead, Plaintiff filed a second request for another thirty days to file objections. See Doc. 74. Plaintiff contends that he

did not have sufficient access to the law library over the past thirty days due to “staffing reductions and shortages of the BOP as a whole and specifically at FCI Forrest City,” where he is housed. /d. at p. 2. A party must show good cause to warrant an extension of time to object. Thompson v. Nix,

, 357 (8th Cir. 1990). “The primary measure of good cause is the movant's diligence in attempting to meet deadlines.” Albright as Next Friend of Doe v. Mountain Home Sch. Dist.,

(8th Cir. 2019) (citation modified). The Court finds that Plaintiffs second motion for an extension of time fails to demonstrate that he diligently tried to meet the Court’s September 5 deadline. Plaintiff has now had a total of forty-five days to prepare objections and was already warned that no further extensions would be granted. See Soliman v. Johanns,

(8th Cir. 2005) (finding no abuse of discretion in denying second motion for extension of time where court warned no further extensions would be granted). “Even pro se litigants must comply with court rules and directives.” /d. Plaintiff contends that his access to the prison law library was somehow limited, but he fails to offer any details. Further, he does not claim he had no access to the library for the past forty-five days. Accordingly, Plaintiffs second Motion to Extend Deadline (Doc. 74) fails to establish good cause for a further extension and is DENIED. Despite the fact that no objections were filed, the Court has undertaken a de novo review of the entire record. The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge’s thirty-seven-page R&R is extremely thorough and well-reasoned. Her analysis of the issues on summary judgment is correct and is ADOPTED IN FULL.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 50) is GRANTED and Plaintiff's ~_ is DISMISSED WiTH PREJUDICE. IT IS SO ORDERED on this g day of Septemb 2025. . 1 a Loot. ee Men Cees UNITE. STATES DISTRICT JUDGE