United States v. Derringer, 5:19-cr-00056

Richard Derringer, a federal prisoner, filed pro se motions to alter, amend, or supplement the dismissal of his habeas petition under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 52(b) and 59(e).
A Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation was issued on November 30, 2023, with Derringer receiving it on December 6, 2023.
Derringer was repeatedly granted extensions for filing objections, with the final deadline set for March 1, 2024, with explicit instructions from the court for compliance.
Derringer claimed to have turned over his objections for mailing on January 26, 2024, but USPS records indicated a much later mailing date (March 2, 2024).
The court reviewed the consistency and credibility of Derringer’s filing practices and found evidence of date alterations and delayed mailing, undermining his sworn attestations.
The court ultimately deemed both Derringer's objections and subsequent Rule 52(b)/59(e) motions untimely due to lack of reliable evidence supporting a timely filing.

Issue	Derringer's Argument	United States' Argument	Held
Whether the objections to the Magistrate’s Report were timely filed under the handing-over rule/prison mailbox rule	Objections should be considered filed when signed and handed to prison officials (Jan 26, 2024)	Filing date should be determined by reliable evidence, such as postmark	Objections untimely; postmark showed late mailing, and attestation lacked credibility
Whether alterations to signed attestations affected credibility	Alterations did not undermine validity	Alterations indicate unreliability and intentional backdating	Altered dates undermine credibility of attestation
Whether late filings could be excused by delays in the prison mailing system	Prison delays caused the late delivery	Pattern of prompt prior mailings and credible evidence suggest otherwise	No credible evidence of exceptional delay; objection not excused
Whether untimely Rule 52(b) and 59(e) motions could be considered	Motions were turned over before the deadline	Mailing was not postmarked until after the deadline	Motions untimely; only reliable evidence is postmark after deadline

Brand v. Motley, 526 F.3d 921 (6th Cir. 2008) (establishes presumption under prison mailbox rule that filing occurs when handed to prison officials, barring contrary evidence)
United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84 (1985) (strict compliance with filing deadlines required)
Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40 (2016) (district courts have inherent authority to manage dockets and set deadlines)