UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE EASTERN DIVISION

WILLIAM SCOTT HOWARD,

Plaintiff,

vs. No. 1:23-1262-STA-jay

JOSEPH FOX,

Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECONSIDER ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR DISMISSAL

Plaintiff William Scott Howard filed a complaint against Defendant Joseph Fox alleging a claim of excessive force. On August 29, 2025, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that Defendant’s motion to dismiss be granted and that various miscellaneous motions be denied. Plaintiff did not file any objections to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation, and the report and recommendation was adopted in its entirety. (ECF No. 71.) Judgment was entered in favor of Defendant that same day. (ECF No. 72.) On September 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider the order of dismissal and judgment. (ECF No. 73.) For the reasons explained below, the motion is DENIED. First, Plaintiff complains that he does not have access to electronic filing and must rely on mail service – which shortens his response time. However, as a pro se litigant, Plaintiff receives three extra days for mail service, thus extending his fourteen-day deadline to seventeen days. See, e.g., Layer-Rosario v. Allied Mortg. Cap.,

, at *1 n.1 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 17, 2017), aff’d sub nom. Layer-Rosario v. Allied Mortg. Cap. Corp.,

(6th Cir. Jan. 9, 2018) (“As Plaintiffs are pro se, so they must be served by United States mail, three days are added for service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).”). Next, Plaintiff suggests that it was not a coincidence that Defendant filed a motion to dismiss two days after Plaintiff was arrested and then was released “just before” the order of dismissal was entered. Plaintiff has not provided any facts to support his speculation that the

timing of the motion to dismiss and the order granting that motion was any more than coincidence. Tellingly, Plaintiff has not provided any actual grounds for setting aside the order, including stating what objections, if any, he would have made to the Magistrate Judge’s report and recommendation if he had not been in jail. Accordingly, the motion to reconsider is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ S. Thomas Anderson S. THOMAS ANDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Date: October 2, 2025