Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Myrick v. Synder

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


April 25, 2006

PERCY MYRICK, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DONALD N. SYNDER, JR., DR. FEINERMAN, DR. GONZALEZ, M. BRIAN, MAJOR COWAN, MICHELLE PULLEY, MS. BROOKS, AND GUY D. PIERCE, DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Proud, Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Additional Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 66). Defendants Brooks, Feinerman, and Gonzalez have filed a response in opposition. (Doc. 67).

There are three pending motions for summary judgment. Two motions (Docs. 43 and 45) were filed on November 15, 2005, and the third (Doc. 57) was filed on February 6, 2006. Plaintiff has sought and received two extensions to respond. See, Docs. 52 and 62. His responses were due on April 17, 2006. He mailed the current motion on April 14, 2006.

In connection with preparing his response to the motions, plaintiff served interrogatories and requests for production on defendants on March 20, 2006. Defendants Pierce, Snyder and Brian objected to the discovery requests because the deadline for completion of discovery was October 31, 2005. See, Doc. 65. The other defendants also raise the lateness of the discovery requests in their response, Doc. 67.

Under the terms of the scheduling order, plaintiff should have requested leave to conduct discovery after the deadline. Of course, as defendants Pierce and Snyder were not served until January, 2006, plaintiff could not have served discovery requests on them within the original deadline. In view of plaintiff's pro se status, the Court deems it appropriate to grant leave for further discovery. However, absent extraordinary circumstances, this will be the last extension to respond to defendants' motions.

Upon consideration and for good cause shown, plaintiff's Plaintiff's Motion for Additional Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment (Doc. 66) is GRANTED as follows: Defendants shall serve their answers and/or objections to plaintiff's March 20, 2006, discovery requests on or before May 15, 2006.

Plaintiff shall file his responses to defendants' motions for summary judgment, Docs. 43, 45, and 57, on or before June 16, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CLIFFORD J. PROUD U. S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20060425

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.