Brown v. Bruns et al

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion to Extend (filing no. 8 ) is denied. Plaintiff shall have until February 21, 2014, to amend his Complaint in accordance with the courts December 2, 2013, Memorandum and Order. ***Pro Se Case Management Deadlines: ( Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 2/21/2014:check for amendedcomplaint.) Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
IRA BROWN,
Plaintiff,
v.
PHYLLIS BRUNS, ERIC ANDER,
and U.S.P.S.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:13CV318

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend. (Filing No. 8.)
In his Motion, and when liberally construed, Plaintiff asks the court to extend the time
to file an amended complaint to allow him to exhaust his administrative remedies on
his Title VII claim by first seeking relief through the EEOC or NEOC. (Id.) As the
court previously explained to Plaintiff, he was required to exhaust his administrative
remedies regarding his Title VII claim “prior to filing a suit in federal court.” (Filing
No. 7.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend is denied.
On the court’s own motion, Plaintiff shall have until February 21, 2014, to file
an amended complaint in accordance with the court’s December 2, 2013,
Memorandum and Order. To the extent Plaintiff does not wish to pursue this matter
until he has exhausted his administrative remedies, he may move to voluntarily
dismiss his Complaint.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend (filing no. 8) is denied.

2.
Plaintiff shall have until February 21, 2014, to amend his Complaint in
accordance with the court’s December 2, 2013, Memorandum and Order.

3.
The Clerk of the court is directed to set a pro se case management
deadline in this case using the following text: February 21, 2014, check for amended
complaint.
DATED this 22nd day of January, 2014.
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