Blake v. Moore et al

Filing 29

ORDER granting 25 Motion to Extend Deadlines; denying 26 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on September 13, 2017. (mll)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION JEREMI BLAKE v. PLAINTIFF Civil No. 4:16-cv-04078 WARDEN MOORE, LIEUTENANT GOLDEN ADAMS, and STEVEN KING DEFENDANTS ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Steven King’s Motion to Extend Deadlines (ECF No. 25) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. (ECF No. 26) On April 25, 2017, this Court entered an Amended Scheduling Order setting various deadlines for discovery completion, the filing of dispositive motions, motions to amend pleadings and join other parties. ECF No. 16. Defendant King was not named as a defendant until June 21, 2017 and he filed his answer on July 25, 2017. I find good cause is shown for an extension of certain deadlines in the Amended Scheduling Order, the request is not intended for the purpose of harassment or delay, and no party will be prejudiced by the extension. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extend Deadlines (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED. The extension of deadlines in the Amended Scheduling Order will be addressed by a separate Court order. As to Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against Southern Health Partners, Inc., Southern Health Partners, Inc. is not a party to this lawsuit. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment (ECF No. 26) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of September 2017. /s/ Barry A. Bryant________ HON. BARRY A. BRYANT 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?