Burgdorf v. McKinney et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 14 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1 DCM Complaint filed by Plaintiff Edward Dale Burgdorf motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.. Signed by District Judge Rodney W. Sippel on 5/13/15. (LGK)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
EDWARD BURGDORF.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
WILLIAM MCKINNEY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:15CV329 RWS

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before me on plaintiff=s motion a 30-day extension of time to file a
response to defendants’ answer. Plaintiff should review the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as
he is expected to comply with them, as well as all applicable local rules, while prosecuting his
case pro se. Plaintiff is also reminded to comply with the obligations set out in the case
management order, which includes fast-approaching deadlines. If, after review of the rules,
plaintiff still desires to file a response to defendants’ answer, he shall file said proposed response
with a motion to seek leave to do so.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff=s motion for an extension of time [#14] is
denied without prejudice.

RODNEY W. SIPPEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 13th day of May, 2015.