Brown v. Astrue

Filing 17

ORDER granting 16 Motion for Extension of Time. The defendant shall on or before September 5, 2013, file and serve its response brief; within one week after the defendant's response brief is filed and served, the plaintiff may file and serve 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 CAYLIN THOMAS BROWN, Plaintiff, 4:13CV3042 vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security; ORDER ON MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME Defendant. The defendant has filed a Motion for Extension of Time, ECF No. 16, requesting a thirty-day extension of time in which to respond to the plaintiff’s brief. In a telephone conversation with my judicial assistant today, counsel for the plaintiff expressed no objection to the motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 1. the defendant’s Motion for Extension of Time, ECF No. 16, is granted; 2. the defendant shall on or before September 5, 2013, file and serve its response brief; 3. within one week after the defendant's response brief is filed and served, the plaintiff may file and serve 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 4. 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. Dated August 5, 2013. BY THE COURT ___________________________________________ 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?