MARK ROGERS V. E.K. MCDANIEL, ET AL.

Filing 230

ORDER that the parties' stipulation, filed on July 12, 2018 (ECF No. 229 ) is approved. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 7/17/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 10 11 MARK ROGERS, Case No. 3:02-cv-00342-GMN-VPC Petitioner, ORDER v. 12 13 14 TIMOTHY FILSON, et al., Respondents. 15 16 In this habeas corpus action, the Court has granted the petitioner, Mark Rogers, 17 an evidentiary hearing with respect to Ground 5 of Rogers’ second amended habeas 18 petition. See Order entered November 6, 2017 (ECF No. 215); Order entered November 19 28, 2017 (ECF No. 217). The evidentiary hearing is now scheduled to commence on 20 October 22, 2018, and the Court has approved a schedule for the parties’ pre-hearing 21 preparations. See Order entered March 14, 2018 (ECF No. 222). 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On July 12, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation (ECF No. 229), agreeing to extend two of the deadlines in the schedule for pre-hearing preparations, as follows: [The Respondents’] disclosure of Rogers’s medical and institutional records [is] extended to Monday, July 16, 2018. Furthermore, it is stipulated that the expert report disclosure deadline for Petitioner’s expert, Dr. Ira Pauly, M.D., be extended from July 24, 2018, to July 31, 2018. All remaining deadlines remain as outlined in this Court’s March 14, 2018 Scheduling Order. ECF No. 222. Stipulation (ECF No. 229), p. 1. 1 1 Good cause appearing, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ stipulation, filed on July 12, 2018 (ECF 3 No. 229) is approved. 4 5 17 July DATED THIS ___ day of ______________________, 2018. 6 7 8 GLORIA M. NAVARRO, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?