UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
July 24, 2006
CEDRIC DUPREE, PLAINTIFF,
EARLY LASTER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge
Plaintiff's most recent court-appointed attorney, Craig G. Moore, has filed a Motion to Stay Appointment/Extension of Time (Doc. 150). Mr. Moore requests an extension of all currently pending deadlines for 90 days due to several "pre-existing legal and personal engagements . . . which cannot be rescheduled or postponed" (Id. at ¶ 9). In an effort to accommodate Mr. Moore's prior commitments so that he may also effectively continue to represent Plaintiff, but also to continue the forward progression of this case, Plaintiff's Motion (Doc. 150) is hereby GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:
The Report & Recommendation (Doc. 137) regarding several Motions to Dismiss filed by Defendants (Docs. 100, 101 & 124) allows the parties ten (10) days from its issuance to file objections, if they so chose. The deadline for filing objections is currently July 25, 2006. The Court cannot grant a 90-day extension to file objections. Instead, the parties have until August 8, 2006 in which to file any objections.
The most-recent Scheduling Order (Doc. 84) set the discovery deadline for May 31, 2006 and the dispositive motions deadline for June 15, 2006. Defendants have also filed a Motion to Enlarge the Time of the Discovery Schedule (Doc. 128), should their Motions to Dismiss be denied. As both parties likely warrant additional time to conduct discovery and/or file dispositive motions, the Court hereby also extends the discovery order, pursuant to Plaintiff's instant Motion (Doc. 150). The Court hereby resets the discovery deadline for October 15, 2006 and the dispositive motions deadline for November 1, 2006. Therefore, the Court finds Defendant's Motion (Doc. 128) as MOOT.
The docket shows that Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 129) remains pending, but has already been briefed in full by the parties. Therefore, there are no further pending deadlines and thus, no need to extend any deadlines pertaining to this Motion, unless and until the Court issues a Report and Recommendation. At that point, if an extension is necessary, Plaintiff can move for one at that time.
Defendants' Motion to Withdraw Appearances (Doc. 148) is hereby GRANTED, as this pending Motion does not require a response by Plaintiff. Accordingly, attorneys Thomas B. Underwood, Michael D. Sanders, Jonathan P. Schaefer and Jennifer E. Simms are hereby terminated as representative counsel for Defendants Karen Barber and Heather Grote in this matter, as they have retained other representative counsel.
Further, the Court finds that other than previously discussed, there are no remaining deadlines regarding the scheduling order or other substantive motions currently pending in this case.*fn1 However, the Court clarifies that this Order does not pertain to any and all motions filed after this date. Therefore, Plaintiff should move for additional time if the need arises.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
David RHerndon United States District Court