Barr v. Gee et al

Filing 36

ORDER extending time and accepting Doc. 35 as timely filed; denying 33 --motion for entry of default; directing the plaintiff to show cause by 4/26/2010 why Doc. 9 --motion to dismiss--should not be granted as unopposed. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 4/15/2010. (BK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION ALFRED BARR, Plaintiff, v. DAVID GEE, et al., Defendants. ____________________________________/ ORDER The defendants David Gee, Paul Fitts, Kristy Udagawa, and Craig Latimer's request (Doc. 34) for an extension of time is GRANTED, and the motion (Doc. 35) to dismiss is deemed timely. The pro se plaintiff's motion (Doc. 33) for entry of default and default judgment is DENIED because no defendant is in default. Additionally, on or before Monday, April 26, 2010, the plaintiff shall show cause in writing why the defendant Hillsborough County Housing and Community Code Enforcement's motion (Doc. 9) to dismiss should not be granted as unopposed.* Failure to respond to this order will result in dismissal of this action without further notice. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on April 15, 2010. CASE NO: 8:10-cv-430-T-23EAJ

See Local Rule 3.01(b) ("Each party opposing a motion or application shall file within fourteen (14) days after service of the motion or application a response that includes a memorandum of legal authority in opposition to the request, all of which the respondent shall include in a document not more than twenty (20) pages.") A copy of the Local Rules is available on the court's website at www.flmd.uscourts.gov.

*