McCarty v. Roos et al

Filing 108

ORDER Granting 106 Motion to Extend Time to Reply re 100 Motion to Dismiss. Replies due by 12/3/2012. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 11/5/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8

ROBERT JOSEPH MCCARTY,

9
10
11

2:11-CV-1538 JCM (RJJ)

Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN V. ROOS, et al.,

12
Defendants.

13
14

ORDER

15

Presently before the court is state defendants Pat Saunders and Char Hoerth’s first motion

16

for enlargement of time. (Doc. # 106). State defendants seek a 30-day extension to file a reply to

17

plaintiff Robert Joseph McCarty’s response to their motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 106, 4:4-7).

18

State defendant seek the extension pursuant Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). (Doc. # 106, 3). State

19

defendants represent that because pro se plaintiff’s response appears to allege new constitutional

20

violations and makes “other wild accusations,” (doc. # 106, 3:22), more time is needed to properly

21

reply in light of counsel’s workload commitments.

22

Good cause appearing,

23

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that state defendants’ motion

24

for enlargement of time (doc. # 106) be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED.

25

...

26

...

27

...

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1
2
3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that respondents shall have up to, and including, December
3, 2012, in which file their reply.
DATED November 5, 2012.

4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-