Munt v. MN Department of Corrections et al

Filing 100

ORDER denying as moot 92 Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's decision and denying as moot 95 Plaintiff's letter request for an extension (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 06/29/17. (MJC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Joel Marvin Munt,

Civil No. 16-1206 (SRN/SER)
Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
Minnesota Department of Corrections,
Tom Roy, Gloria H. Andreachi, Bruce
Julson, Steve Hammer, and Bruce Reiser,
Defendants.

Joel Marvin Munt, pro se, 236179, MCF–Stillwater, 970 Pickett St. N., Bayport, MN
55003
Lindsay LaVoie, Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, 445 Minnesota St., Suite 900, St.
Paul, MN 55101, for Defendants

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Letter Request for an Extension [Doc.
No. 95] and his Objections [Doc. No. 92] to the Text Only Order of Magistrate Judge Steven
E. Rau dated May 25, 2017 (“May 25, 2017 Order”) [Doc. No. 89]. Because these matters
concern the same deadline, the Court addresses them together.
In the May 25, 2017 Order, Magistrate Judge Rau granted in part and denied in part
Munt’s earlier request [Doc. No. 88] for an extension to August 1, 2017 in which to file his

1

reply memorandum with respect to his Motion for Summary Judgment. Because Magistrate
Judge Rau had previously granted Munt an extension to July 1, 2017 in which to respond to
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, (see Text Only Order of 5/10/17 (“May 10,
2017 Order”) [Doc. No. 85]), and because many of the same arguments, case law, and facts
would likely be raised in Munt’s reply memorandum, Magistrate Judge Rau found that no
additional time beyond July 1, 2017 was warranted for the filing of Munt’s reply
memorandum. Accordingly, he granted Munt an extension to July 1, 2017 in which to
address only those issues not briefed in Munt’s forthcoming response to Defendants’ Motion
for Summary Judgment. In his Objections, Munt reiterates his need for additional time.
(Objections at 1-3.)
In Munt’s June 16, 2017 Letter Request, filed with the Court on June 21, 2017, he
seeks an extension of at least two weeks in which to file his memorandum in opposition to
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 69], his reply memorandum in
support of his Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. No. 76], and any supporting affidavits
relating to the memoranda. (Letter of 6/16/17 at 1.) This request for a two-week extension
is consistent with Munt’s earlier request for an extension until August 1, 2017.
Although Munt had until July 1, 2017 in which to file his opposition and reply
memoranda, both documents, dated June 20, 2017, were filed with the Court on June 22,
2017 [Doc. Nos. 96 & 97], along with an affidavit in support of the memoranda [Doc. No.
98]. Because Munt has filed the documents for which he sought an extension, his requests
for an extension, set forth in the Letter Request and Objections, are accordingly denied as
2

moot.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s Objections [Doc. No. 92] to the May 25, 2017 Order are DENIED
AS MOOT; and

2.

Plaintiff’s Letter Request [Doc. No. 95] for an Extension is DENIED AS
MOOT.

Dated: June 29, 2017

s/Susan Richard Nelson
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge

3