DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

FRANCIS B. SERIEUX, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 3:20-cv-0053 ) Trevor Velinor, ) ) Defendant. ) )

ORDER BEFORE THE COURT is the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 3.) The Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court dismiss the complaint filed by Francis B. Serieux against Commissioner Trevor Velinor of the Virgin Islands Police Department, for failing to state his correct name. Also before the Court is Francis B. Serieux’s motion requesting an extension of time to object to the report and recommendation. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the motion for an extension of time, adopt the report and recommI. endatFioAnC, TaUndA Ld iAsmNDis sP tRhOe CcoEmDUplRaiAnLt iHnI tShTisO mRYat. ter. pro se On July 24, 2020, Francis B. Serieux (“Serieux”), proceeding , filed a complaint against Commissioner Trevor Velinor (“Velinor”) of the Virgin Islands Police Department See (“VIPD”). In his complaint, Serieux alleges that Velinor told Serieux that his name was Id. “Trevor Illinois.” Complaint at 2, ECF No. 1. Serieux asserts that Velinior broke the law Id. when Velinor “lied” about his name. Serieux seeks “Nine Hundred & Ninety Nine Squillion” dollars. at 3. On August 4, 2020, the Magistrate Judge entered a report and recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss the complaint for failing to allege a basis for federal See jurisdiction. ECF No. 3. The next day, August 5, 2020, a copy of the report and recommendation was sent to Serieux by certified mail. Hard Copy Notice at 1, ECF No. 4. Case Number 3:20-cv-0053 Order Page 2 of 5

See On August 18, 2020, Serieux filed a motion “asking the court to write in cursive not print.” Motion at 1, August 18, 2020, ECF No. 5. In that motion, Serieux requests an Id. additional month to respond to the report and recommendation and “to correct [his] lawsuits.” Serieux asserts that an extension of time is warranted because he is waiting on See id. new copies of his complaint from the Clerk’s Office and fourteen days is not enough time to correct 24 cases.1 II. DISCUSSION Litigants may make “specific written objections” to a magistrate judge’s report and See see also recommendation “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2);

(b)(1) (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by rules of court.”). When a party is served by mail pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C) (“A paper is served under this rule by . . . mailing it to the person’s last known address—in which event service is complete upon See mailing”), the 14-day time period within which a party may object to a magistrate judge’ report and recommendation is extended to 17 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) (“When a party may or must act within a specified time after being served and service is made under Rule see also Pearson v. Prison Health Serv. 5(b)(2)(C) (mail) . . . 3 days are added after the period would otherwise expire under Rule 6(a).”); ,

(3d Cir. 2013) (explaining that when a party is served with a report and recommendation by mail, the period to file objections is 17 days). The time within which a party may make objections may be extended See by the Court upon a timely motion for an extension of time demonstrating good cause for the extension. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good cause, extend that time . . . if a request is made, before the original time . . . expires.”).

1See Serieux references Case Number 3:20-cv-0052 and “23 other cases” as the 24 cases which he must “correct.” Motion at 1, August 18, 2020, ECF No. 5. The Court is aware of a total of 18 complaints recently filed by Case Number 3:20-cv-0053 Order Page 3 of 5

de novo When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, the Court is required See to review only those portions of the report and recommendation to which a party has objected. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). When no objection to a magistrate’s report and See Henderson v. Carlson recommendation is made, or such an objection is untimely, the district court reviews the report and recommendation for plain error. ,

, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (“While . . . [

(b)(1)] may not require, in the absence of objections, the district court to review the magistrate’s report before accepting it, we believe that the see also Tice v. Wilson better practice is for the district judge to afford some level of review to dispositive legal aff'd issues raised by the report.”); ,

(W.D. Pa. 2006) de ,

(3d Cir. 2008)(explaining that, by failing to object to a portion of a novo report and recommendation, the litigant “waived its right to have this Court conduct a review,” and that in those circumstances, “the scope of [the court’s] review is far more limited and is conducted under the far more deferential standard of ‘plain error’ ”). See Here, Serieux was served with a copy of the report and recommendation by mail on August 5, 2020. Hard Copy Notice at 1, ECF No. 4. As such, the deadline for Serieux to file objections to the August 4, 2020 report and recommendation was August 24, 2020. Serieux has not filed any objections. Nevertheless, on August 18, 2020, Serieux did timely request an extension of time to make his objections. Ashmore v. Sec'y, DOT “To establish good cause, the party seeking the extension must establish that the schedule could not be met despite the party's diligence.” ,

(11th Cir. 2013). “It is not enough for counsel to claim that s/he is too busy to meet Joseph v. Hess Oil V.I. Corp. the deadline . . . [r]ather, unforeseen or uncontrollable events . . . lie at the heart of the ‘good cause’ requirement for additional time.” ,

(3d see also Bishop v. Corsentino Cir. 2011) (interpreting good cause for an extension of time to appeal under 3d Cir. Local Appellate Rule 112.4(a)); ,

(10th Cir. 2004) (explaining that good cause for an extension of time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) “is usually occasioned by something that is not within the control of the movant”). Significantly, Serieux does not present any reasons to warrant an extension of time Case Number 3:20-cv-0053 Order Page 4 of 5

other than his assertions that he is waiting on new copies of his complaint from the Clerk’s Office and that fourteen days is not enough time to correct his case. The Court finds that such circumstances do not constitute good cause. As such, the Court will deny Serieux’s request for an extension of time to object to the August 4, 2020 report and recommendation. Accordingly, the Court will review the report and recommendation for plain error. To reject or modify a report and recommendation under plain error reU vn ieit we ,d a S dta ist te rs i cv t. Russell United States v. Retos court must find “an ‘error’ that is ‘plain’ and that ‘affects substantial rights.’” Gov’t of Virgin Islands v. ,

(3d Cir. 1998) (quoting ,

, 1228 Lewis United States v. Turcks (3d Cir. 1994)). “A ‘plain’ error is one that is ‘clear’ or ‘obvious.’ ” ,

,

(3d Cir. 2010) (quoting ,

(3d Cir. 1994)). Reviewing the record in this case and the August 4, 2020, report and recommendation for plain error, the Court finds no error, let alone plain error. Significantly, “[j]urisdiction in the federal courts is limited . . . and exists in only two circumstances: when a complaint asserts a cause of action under some provision of federal law . . . or when the parties are of Abulkhair v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000.00, exclusive of costs and interest . . ..” , 441 F. App'x

(3d Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). Moreover, “[t]he basis for federal court jurisdiction must be apparent from the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” This Court is unable to identify any cognizable claim under federal law from the face of Serieux’s complaint. Nor is diverse citizenship apparent. As such, the Court will adopt the August 4, 2020 report and recommendation. OThReD pErReEmDis es considered, it is hereby that Francis Serieux’s motion, ECF No. 5, for an extension of time to file oDbEjNecItEiDons to the August 4, 2020 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is O;R itD iEs RfuErDther ADOPTED that the August 4, 2020 Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 3, is ; it is further Case Number 3:20-cv-0053 Order Page 5 ofO 5R DERED DISMISSED

that Francis Serieux’s complaint, ECF No. 1, is ; and it is furtherO RDERED CLOSE that the Clerk of Court shall this case.

Dated: Robert A. Molloy ROBERT A. MOLLOY August 28, 2020 /Dsi/s trict Judge