From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

White v. Norton

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Jan 10, 2006
Civil Action No. 04-cv-02555-WYD-PAC (D. Colo. Jan. 10, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 04-cv-02555-WYD-PAC.

January 10, 2006


ORDER


Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on October 27, 2005. On December 19, 2005, the pro se plaintiff filed his Affidavit Explaining Why a Ruling on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment Should be Postponed [Doc. No. 16]. The Clerk has construed the Affidavit as plaintiff's motion for extension of time to file his response to the summary judgment motion after completion of discovery [Doc. No. 18].

Plaintiff states in his Affidavit that witness Joann Hagan's responses to his interrogatories are essential to his summary judgment response. Defendant does not object to plaintiff filing his response brief twenty days after receipt of defendant's responses to plaintiff's discovery responses. See Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Affidavit . . . filed November 30, 2005.

Defendant advised the court on January 9, 2006 that plaintiff received defendant's responses to plaintiff's interrogatories directed to Ms. Hagan on December 12, 2005. Plaintiff did not object to the discovery response. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff shall file his response to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment on or before February 3, 2006. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the hearing set for January 17, 2006 at 10:30 a.m., in Courtroom A501, is VACATED.


Summaries of

White v. Norton

United States District Court, D. Colorado
Jan 10, 2006
Civil Action No. 04-cv-02555-WYD-PAC (D. Colo. Jan. 10, 2006)
Case details for

White v. Norton

Case Details

Full title:MARK H. WHITE, Plaintiff(s), v. GALE NORTON, Secretary, U.S. Department of…

Court:United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Jan 10, 2006

Citations

Civil Action No. 04-cv-02555-WYD-PAC (D. Colo. Jan. 10, 2006)