Stokes v. White

Filing 63

ORDER that Plaintiff's Motion to Leave to Amend Summary Judgment (Filing No. 62 ) is denied because any "errors" Plaintiff needs to correct may be included in his reply to Defendant's response to Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Filing No. 57 ). 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 to Leave to Amend Summary Judgment (Filing No.
62) “in order to correct error.” Plaintiff does not specify the nature of the error, but
states that he needs 30 additional days to “amend” his motion for summary judgment
because of limited access to the law library.1
Plaintiff filed his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Filing No. 57) on May
31, 2017; Defendant has been ordered (Filing No. 61) to respond to such motion on
or before June 21, 2017; and, pursuant to Nebraska Civil Rule 7.1(c), Plaintiff may
file a reply within seven days thereafter. Any “errors” Plaintiff needs to correct may
be included in his reply to Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Leave to Amend Summary
Judgment (Filing No. 62) is denied because any “errors” Plaintiff needs to correct may

1

Plaintiff has filed numerous motions for extensions of time throughout this
lawsuit, which has simply prolonged disposition of his claims. (See Filing No. 8,
Filing No. 17, Filing No. 20, Filing No. 29, Filing No. 30, Filing No. 37, Filing No.
52.)

be included in his reply to Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (Filing No. 57).
DATED this 12th day of June, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

2