From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Richardson v. Industrial Commission of Ohio

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division at Dayton
Dec 9, 2009
Case No. 3:09-cv-455 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 9, 2009)

Opinion

Case No. 3:09-cv-455.

December 9, 2009


ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TIME EXTENSIONS


This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to Answer which appears to request that all time periods in the case when Plaintiff would be required to file something be be adjusted to thirty days. The Court appreciates Plaintiff's difficulties with transportation and health, but is not prepared to extend every deadline on a blanket basis. As a matter of equal justice, all persons who invoke the judicial process should be required to comply, as much as possible, with the same rules of procedure.

The Court is willing, however, to extend time periods on an as-needed basis. Accordingly, the time within which Plaintiff must file any objections to the pending Report and Recommendations is extended to and including January 4, 2010. This does not involve any imposition on other parties because no one has yet been served.


Summaries of

Richardson v. Industrial Commission of Ohio

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division at Dayton
Dec 9, 2009
Case No. 3:09-cv-455 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 9, 2009)
Case details for

Richardson v. Industrial Commission of Ohio

Case Details

Full title:EARL RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division at Dayton

Date published: Dec 9, 2009

Citations

Case No. 3:09-cv-455 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 9, 2009)