From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vrh v. Ndoh

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 23, 2022
1:20-cv-00581-JLT-BAK (SKO) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 23, 2022)

Opinion

1:20-cv-00581-JLT-BAK (SKO)

06-23-2022

AARON ANTHONY VRH, Petitioner, v. ROSEMARY NDOH, Warden, Respondent.


[PROPOSED] ORDER

(DOC. 46)

SHEILA K. OBERTO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Respondent has moved for a 60-day enlargement of time within which to file a reply to Petitioner's opposition to Respondent's motion to dismiss and to continue the August 17, 2022 hearing to September 20, 2022. (Doc. 46).

GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, IT IS ORDERED that Respondent's motion is granted. The reply to Petitioner's opposition to Respondent's motion to dismiss shall be filed on or before August 20, 2022. In filing the motion to dismiss, the parties noted that “[b]oth parties are willing to submit the matter on the briefing without a hearing.” (Doc. 39 at 1, n.1). Accordingly, the hearing on Respondent's motion to dismiss is VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Vrh v. Ndoh

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 23, 2022
1:20-cv-00581-JLT-BAK (SKO) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 23, 2022)
Case details for

Vrh v. Ndoh

Case Details

Full title:AARON ANTHONY VRH, Petitioner, v. ROSEMARY NDOH, Warden, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 23, 2022

Citations

1:20-cv-00581-JLT-BAK (SKO) (E.D. Cal. Jun. 23, 2022)