Bates v. Astrue

Filing 29

ORDER granting 28 Defendant's Second Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaitniff's Brief. ORDER setting briefing schedule. 20 The defendant's brief deadline is extended to April 13, 2009; within one week after the defendan t's answer brief is filed, the plaintiff may file a reply brief and either party may request oral argument or make any other request which may be permitted under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); and in the absence of an order setting the case for oral argument or scheduling further proceedings, the case shall be deemed to be submitted at the expiration of the time period specified in paragraph 3 hereof. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (EJL)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA CHERYL BATES, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 4:08CV3118 ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S SECOND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF For the reasons stated in the Defendant's Second Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Brief and with no opposition from the plaintiff, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. the Defendant's Second Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Brief, filing 28, is granted and the defendant's brief deadline is extended to April 13, 2009; within one week after the defendant's answer brief is filed, the plaintiff may file a reply brief and either party may request oral argument or make any other request which may be permitted under 42 U.S.C. 405(g); and in the absence of an order setting the case for oral argument or scheduling further proceedings, the case shall be deemed to be submitted at the expiration of the time period specified in paragraph 3 hereof. 2. 3. Dated March 13, 2009. BY THE COURT s/ Warren K. Urbom United States Senior District Judge

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?