Opinion
Civil Action No. 07-cv-00658-WDM-KMT.
January 16, 2008
ORDER
This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Edward C. Herlik's "Motion to Postpone for 60 Days Ruling on [3] United States' Motion to Substitute the United States as Defendant", [document no. 22, filed May 17, 2007] (the "Motion"). A Response was filed by Defendant Elaine L. Knight on June 1, 2007 [document no. 24].
To the extent the Motion sought to prevent a pro forma ruling on Defendant's Motion to Substitute the United States as Defendant [document 3, filed April 3, 2007], the court notes that the Motion to Substitute is still pending. To the extent the Motion sought an extension of time to file a Response to the Motion to Substitute the United States as Defendant, the Response was filed, albeit out of time, on July 17, 2007 [document 34].
When a party is proceeding pro se, the court will liberally construe his pleadings. McBride v. Deer, 240 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 2001). While such plaintiffs must follow procedural rules common to ordinary civil litigation, McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993), given the passage of time, there is no prejudice to the defendant by the delay in the pro se plaintiff's filing of the Response on July 17, 2007.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff's "Motion to Postpone for 60 Days Ruling on [3] United States' Motion to Substitute the United States as Defendant", [document no. 22] is GRANTED.