Fiedler v. State of Nebraska Department of Roads et al

Filing 156

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 155 Motion to Extend Time. The court will rule on the pending Motion for Summary Judgment in its normal course. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (JSF)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
EUGENE J. FIEDLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NEBRASKA
DEPARTMENT OF ROADS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:08CV3144

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s fourth Motion for Extension of
Time. (Filing No. 155.) In his Motion, Plaintiff requests an additional 60 days, until
January 2, 2012, to respond to Defendants’ pending Motion for Summary Judgment.
(Id.)
At the time Plaintiff filed this matter, he was represented by counsel. (Filing
No. 1.) However, on April 4, 2011, the court granted Plaintiff’s counsel leave to
withdraw, and Plaintiff has been representing himself since that time. (Filing No. 142
and 147 (text-only order).) The court has previously granted Plaintiff three lengthy
extensions of time in order to respond to the pending Motion for Summary Judgment.
(Filing No. 149 and 151 (text-only orders).) At the time it granted Plaintiff’s second
request for an extension of time, the court stated, “ NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS
OF TIME WILL BE GRANTED.” (Filing No. 151 (text-only order).) At the time
it granted Plaintiff’s third request for an extension of time, over Defendants’
Objection, the court stated that “under absolutely no circumstances will the court
grant an additional extension of time to respond, and Plaintiff is cautioned that the
court will proceed to rule on the merits of the pending Motion for Summary Judgment
on November 1, 2011, regardless of whether Plaintiff has filed a response.” (Filing
No. 154 at CM/ECF p. 2.)

The Motion for Summary has been pending since May 2, 2011, or nearly eight
months. (Filing No. 144.) Plaintiff has been given three extensions of time, totaling
more than five months. (See Docket Sheet.) On two separate occasions, the court has
clearly and specifically warned Plaintiff that it will not grant any additional
extensions of time to respond. Plaintiff has had ample time to respond to the pending
Motion for Summary Judgment and has not done so.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time
(filing no. 155) is denied. The court will rule on the pending Motion for Summary
Judgment in its normal course.
DATED this 22nd day of November, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Chief United States District Judge

2