Opinion
19-11654
06-13-2022
ROBERT K. DECKER, Plaintiff, v. LILITA INFANTE, et al., Defendants.
CURTIS IVY, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND (ECF NO. 89)
STEPHANIE DAWKINS DAVIS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Robert Decker filed this Bivens action on June 5, 2019, without the assistance of counsel and proceeding in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1). Defendant Stephen Popp moved to dismiss on March 24, 2022. (ECF No. 84). The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a response to that motion by June 13, 2022. (ECF No. 87). On June 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to extend that deadline by 60 days. (ECF No. 89). Defendant Popp did not respond.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(A) permits the court to extend the time to act if good cause is shown where, as here, the request is made before the time to act has expired. In support of his motion, Plaintiff explains he has limited access to the law library and writing tools pending his transfer. (ECF No. 89, PageID.600). Plaintiff made his request before his response was due. There is therefore good cause to extend the deadline. For these reasons, Plaintiff's request for an extension to file a response (ECF No. 89) is GRANTED. Plaintiff will have until August 12, 2022 to file his response brief. Defendant Popp may file a reply brief within 14 days of service of the response. Should any of the parties require more time to meet their respective deadlines, they may file a motion seeking an extension of their deadline demonstrating good cause for an extension.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The parties to this action may object to and seek review of this Order, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.1(d). A party may not assign as error any defect in this Order to which timely objection was not made. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Any objections are required to specify the part of the Order to which the party objects and state the basis of the objection. When an objection is filed to a magistrate judge's ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in full force and effect unless and until it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge. E.D. Mich. Local Rule 72.2.