(PC)Cox v. Daram et al

Filing 44

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson on 02/06/2024 GRANTING 42 Motion for an extension of time. Defendant's 43 Reply to opposition is deemed timely.(Lopez, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
ERNEST LEE COX, Jr.,

Case No. 2:21-cv-01778-DJC-JDP (PC)

12
13
v.
14
15

VASUKI DARAM, et al.,

16

Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF
REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE A REPLY TO
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
Defendants.

17
Defendants moved for an extension of the deadline to file a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition to
18
Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants requested to extend the foregoing deadlines by three
19
days, up to and including February 2, 2024.
20
The Court has read and considered the motion and finds that good cause exists to grant it.
21
22
23

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for administrative relief requesting
an extension of time to file a reply to Plaintiff’s opposition is GRANTED, and Defendants reply
to Plaintiff’s opposition, ECF No. 43, is deemed timely.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
Dated:

February 6, 2024

27

JEREMY D. PETERSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
1