Johnson v. Kachelmeyer

Full title: MICHAEL JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. D. KACHELMEYER, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, W.D. New York

Date published: May 18, 2005

03-CV-356S(Sc) (W.D.N.Y. May. 18, 2005)

Opinion

03-CV-356S(Sc).

May 18, 2005

DECISION and ORDER

WILLIAM SKRETNY, District Judge

Before the Court is plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file a response to defendants motion for summary judgment because he is pro se and needs additional time to properly prepare a response to the motion. (Docket No. 45). Plaintiff also again moves for the appointment of counsel. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time hereby is granted and his motion for appointment of counsel is denied for the same reasons previously set forth in the Order of United States Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott denying plaintiff's earlier motion for the appointment of counsel. (Docket No. 27).

Plaintiff may have until June 9, 2005 to file a response to defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff is cautioned that if he fails to submit a response to defendants' motion for summary judgment by June 9, 2005, it may result in the grant of summary judgment to defendants and the dismissal of all or part of plaintiff's case. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward another Irby Notice to plaintiff with this Order. See Irby v. New York City Transit Authority, 262 F.3d 412 (2d Cir. 2001).

SO ORDERED.