Opinion
21-10703
12-02-2022
Mark A. Goldsmith United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXTEND DISPOSITIVE MOTION DEADLINE (ECF No. 61)
CURTIS IVY, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On November 16, 2022, Plaintiff moved for an Order to stay the case or extend the dispositive motion deadline by 180 days. (ECF No. 61). In support of his request for this extension, he explains that the medical condition effecting his hands impedes his ability to write and that he is scheduled for surgery to restore some functioning to his right hand. (Id. at PageID.659). Plaintiff also stated that he spoke with defense counsel, who does not oppose a 180-day extension of the dispositive motion deadline. (Id. at PageID.659-60).
The dispositive motion deadline is currently set for December 9, 2022. Plaintiff's motion, filed well before the expiration of the deadline, is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)'s good cause standard. Plaintiff has demonstrated good cause for an extension, given the difficulty he has with his hands and his upcoming hand surgery. And Defendants concur in the relief sought. The motion is GRANTED. Dispositive motions will be due on or before June 7, 2023. No further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.
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.