Brown v. Astrue

Filing 18

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Defendant's Motion to Extend (filing 16 ) is granted. Defendant's Brief filed July 31, 2013, is deemed timely filed. Plaintiff may file a reply brief by August 9, 2013. This case shall be ripe for decision on August 12, 2013. Defendant's unopposed Motion to Extend (filing 15 ) is denied as moot. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (AOA)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
HARRY J. BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:12CV411

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before me on Defendant’s Motion to Extend. (Filing 16.) In the
Motion, Defendant asks me to extend the time in which to respond to Plaintiff’s Brief
until July 31, 2013. (Id.) Defendant had previously filed an unopposed Motion to
Extend that is still pending. (Filing 15.) On July 31, 2013, Defendant filed a Brief in
Support of the Administrative Decision and in Reply to Plaintiff’s Brief. (Filing 17.)
For good cause shown, Defendant’s Motion to Extend (filing 16) is granted and
Defendant’s July 31, 2013, Brief is deemed timely filed. The remaining briefing
schedule will be extended as set forth below. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that:
1.

Defendant’s Motion to Extend (filing 16) is granted.

2.

Defendant’s Brief filed July 31, 2013, is deemed timely filed;

3.

Plaintiff may file a reply brief by August 9, 2013;

4.

This case shall be ripe for decision on August 12, 2013; and

5.

Defendant’s unopposed Motion to Extend (filing 15) is denied as moot.

DATED this 1st day of August, 2013.
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.
2