Zuck v. Peart et al

Filing 79

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Defendants shall have 14 days from the date of this Memorandum and Order to respond to the aforementioned motions. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
WILLIAM ZUCK,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARIO PEART, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:12CV3252

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. In order to ensure a just and
speedy resolution of this matter, the court will order Defendants to respond to the following
motions filed by Plaintiff: Plaintiff’s Motion for Status of Service on Defendants (Filing
No. 57), and Plaintiff’s Motion filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d)
(Filing No. 60). In Plaintiff’s Motion for Status of Service on Defendants, Plaintiff
explains that he delivered a summons form to Attorney General Jon Bruning on December
23, 2013, in an attempt to serve Defendants in their official capacities. Counsel for
Defendants responded to this attempted service of process by filing a motion to dismiss
Attorney General Jon Bruning as a defendant. (See Filing No. 54.) In Plaintiff’s Motion
filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), Plaintiff argues that he cannot
present facts essential to justify his opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Filing No. 60.)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Defendants shall have 14 days from the date
of this Memorandum and Order to respond to the aforementioned motions.
DATED this 17th day of April, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior 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.