Stokes v. White

Filing 18

ORDER that the Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to Defendant's Answer (Filing No. 17 ) is denied. A progression order governing how this case will proceed shall now be issued. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (LAC)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
MICHAEL TEE STOKES SR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTT WHITE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:16CV3027
ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to Defendant’s
Answer (Filing No. 17). Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied for the reason that the
defendant has been served with process, the defendant filed an answer on October 14,
2016 (Filing No. 14), and a progression order that will govern how this case will proceed
must now be issued. NECivR 16.1(c)(2) (approximately 30 days after last defendant
answers in pro se case, court will issue progression order addressing discovery and other
issues).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to Defendant’s
Answer (Filing No. 17) is denied; and
2.
issued.

A progression order governing how this case will proceed shall now be

DATED this 8th day of November, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge