Aidnik v. California Medical Facility et al

Filing 99

ORDER signed by Senior Judge Howard D. McKibben on 08/11/10 ORDERING that plf's 98 Motion for Continuance, if seeking an extension of time to oppose the dft's motion for summary judgment, is DENIED as moot. To the extent plf is seeking an extension of time to file pretrial motions, the motion is DENIED as premature. (Benson, A.)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 On August 5, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a 21 continuance (#98). 22 of time to oppose the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the 23 motion is denied as moot. 24 2010, sua sponte granted plaintiff an extension of time up to and 25 including September 7, 2010, to file an opposition. 26 plaintiff is seeking an extension of time to file pretrial motions, 27 the motion is denied as premature. 28 1 The court has not yet ruled on To the extent The court in its order dated August 3, To the extent plaintiff is seeking an extension JEFF AIDNIK, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY, et ) al., ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________ ) 2:08-cv-02583-HDM-RAM ORDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

the dispositive motion in this case.

Accordingly, the pretrial

order and motions deadlines have not yet been set. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: This 11th day of August, 2010.

____________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2