Irons v. City of Holly Hill et al

Filing 94

ORDER -- Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to file a responsive memorandum and any materials demonstrating the existence of genuine issues of material fact on or before Friday, September 29, 2017; otherwise the Court will consider the motion unopposed. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 9/18/2017. (VMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
DEREASE L. IRONS,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 6:16-cv-479-Orl-37GJK

JAMES PATTON,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on its own motion. On June 27, 2016, pro se Plaintiff
Derease Irons filed an amended complaint against three defendants seeking damages
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a violation of the Fourth Amendment. (Doc. 23.) After whittling
down the parties in this action (see Doc. 75), only Defendant James Patton (“Patton”)
remains.
On August 1, 2017, Patton moved for summary judgment on the claims asserted
against him. (Doc. 88 (“MSJ”).) Pursuant to the Court’s Amended Case Management and
Scheduling Order (“CMSO”), Plaintiff’s response was originally due on or before
Thursday, August 1, 2017. (See Doc. 50, p. 9 (allotting thirty days to respond to summary
judgment motions); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1)(C), (d) (extending deadlines that fall on
a weekend or holiday to the next business day and adding three additional days if a
motion is served by mail).) Plaintiff then moved for a thirty-day extension to file his
response (Doc. 91), which U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Kelly granted, extending the
-1-

deadline to September 15, 2017. (Doc. 93). To date, Plaintiff has not responded.
The CMSO also states that the Court: (1) takes motions for summary judgment
under advisement forty-five days from the date they are served, unless extended by
Court order; and (2) does not hold hearings on such motions as a matter of course.
(Doc. 59, pp. 9–10.) Due to Plaintiff’s pro se status, in an abundance of caution, the Court
will provide Plaintiff additional time to respond. If a response is filed, Patton will be
provided fourteen days from the date of filing to submit a reply. (Doc. 59, p. 9 (allotting
fourteen days for a moving party to file a reply to an MSJ).)
Accordingly, Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to file a responsive memorandum
and any materials demonstrating the existence of genuine issues of material fact on or
before Friday, September 29, 2017; otherwise the Court will consider the motion
unopposed and, if appropriate, enter summary judgment against Plaintiff. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). If Plaintiff files a response, Patton may file a reply within fourteen
days of receipt. The parties are advised that the Court will take the pending motion under
advisement as of Monday, October 16, 2017. 1
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on September 18, 2017.

See Milburn v. United States, 734 F.2d 762, 765 (11th Cir. 1984) (requiring that a
trial court notify the parties that a motion for summary judgment will be taken under
advisement as of a certain day); see also May v. Hetzel, 630 F. App’x 994, 998 (11th Cir. 2015)
(noting that Rule 56 still requires a court to give notice before issuing judgment).
1

-2-

Copies to:
Counsel of Record

-3-