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)

Download PDF
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.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?