From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. Werholtz

United States District Court, D. Kansas
Feb 21, 2006
Civil Action No. 04-3237-CM (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 04-3237-CM.

February 21, 2006


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Plaintiff filed the instant action on July 30, 2004. On May 26, 2005, defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 43). On June 9, 2005, plaintiff filed pro se responses to the motion for summary judgment (Docs. 48, 49, 50). On July 18, 2005, Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse appointed Mr. Jay DeHardt to represent plaintiff in this action. The court then ordered plaintiff to show cause why defendants' motion for summary judgment should not be considered on the briefs currently before the court. Plaintiff responded on February 20, 2006, and the court finds that plaintiff has shown good cause why he should be allowed to amend his response to defendants' motion, now that he has counsel. Plaintiff's amended response is due February 28, 2006. Defendants thereafter have 23 days to reply.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Thomas v. Werholtz

United States District Court, D. Kansas
Feb 21, 2006
Civil Action No. 04-3237-CM (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 2006)
Case details for

Thomas v. Werholtz

Case Details

Full title:ERNEST LEE THOMAS, Plaintiff, v. ROGER WERHOLTZ, et al., Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. Kansas

Date published: Feb 21, 2006

Citations

Civil Action No. 04-3237-CM (D. Kan. Feb. 21, 2006)