Stiger v. USA

Filing 35

ORDER denying 26 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 03/06/2014. (rhm)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION THOMAS HAROLD STIGER v. PLAINTIFF 2:13CV00110-JTK UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEFENDANT ORDER By Order dated January 17, 2014, this Court granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed Plaintiff’s Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) complaint against it (Doc. Nos. 24, 25). The Court noted in its Memorandum and Order that Plaintiff failed to respond to the Motion, despite having been granted two extensions (Doc. No. 24, p. 2).1 On January 27, 2014, the Court received from Plaintiff a belated Response to the Summary Judgment Motion (Doc. No. 26). By Order dated January 29, 2014, this Court indicated that Plaintiff’s belated Response to Defendant’s Summary Judgment Motion (Doc. No. 26) would be construed as a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 30). Defendants responded to the Motion (Doc. No. 31), and on February 12, 2014, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a Reply within ten days, noting that failure to reply would result in the denial of the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 32). Plaintiff has not filed a Reply or otherwise corresponded with the Court. Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 26) is DENIED. 1 On November 20, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s first Motion for Extension, directing him to respond by December 14, 2013 (Doc. No. 12). On December 17, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff’s second Motion for Extension, directing him to respond by January 14, 2014 (Doc. No. 17). This last Order was returned as undeliverable, on December 31, 2013 (Doc. No. 23). IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of March, 2014. ______________________________________ JEROME T. KEARNEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?