Peterson v. United States of America et al

Filing 15

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER regarding Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. (Filing No. 10 ). The court intends to treat the Motion as one for summary judgment. Petitioner shall have until November 30, 2011, in which to submit a response to the pending Mot ion to Dismiss, along with any "material that is pertinent to the motion." ***Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 11/30/2011: deadline for Petitioner to respond to Motion. Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed/e-mailed to pro se party)(JAB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JAY S. PETERSON,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:11CV3071

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss. (Filing No. 10.) After
careful review of the Motion and the Declaration filed in support of the Motion, the court intends
to treat the Motion as one for summary judgment. As such, the court will consider documents
outside of the pleadings submitted by Respondent, and will permit Petitioner an additional
opportunity to “present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Petitioner shall have until November 30, 2011, in
which to submit a response to the pending Motion to Dismiss, along with any “material that is
pertinent to the motion.” The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline
with the following text: November 30, 2011: deadline for Petitioner to respond to Motion.
DATED this 1 st day of November, 2011.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
Chief United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third
parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no
agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for
the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.