Roland v. Social Security Administration
Filing
19
ORDER granting 18 Defendant's Third Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff's Brief. The defendant shall have on or before December 4, 2013, in which to file and serve her response to the plaintiff's brief; wi thin one week after the defendant's answer brief is filed, the plaintiff may file and serve a reply brief ; and 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)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CAROL MAE ROLAND,
Plaintiff,
4:13CV3085
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration; and OFFICE OF
GENERAL COUNSEL SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S THIRD
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF
Defendants.
The defendant, by an through her counsel, has filed Defendant’s Third Unopposed
Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiff’s Brief, ECF No. 18. The defendant
requests an extension until December 4, 2013, in which to respond to the plaintiff’s brief and
states that the plaintiff’s counsel has been contacted and has expressed no objection to the
extension.
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that:
1. the Defendant’s Third Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to
Plaintiff’s Brief, ECF No. 18, is granted;
2. the defendant shall have on or before December 4, 2013, in which to file and serve her
response to the plaintiff's brief;
3. within one week after the defendant's answer brief is filed, the plaintiff may file and
serve a reply brief ; and
4. the case shall be deemed to be submitted at the expiration of the time period specified
in paragraph 3 hereof.
Dated November 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?