Galego v. Scott et al

Filing 47

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's motions for enlargment of time 27 35 are DENIED. The Court will therefore treat the motions 27 35 for thispurpose as motions for enlargement of time to file objections to the Magistrate Judges Rep ort and Recommendation 26 . IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have 14 days within which to file objections to the Report and Recommendation 26 . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' motion to extend time 36 is GRANTED. Therefore, pending the Courts decision on the Report and Recommendation, briefing on Plaintiff's motions 28 29 30 32 and 33 will be suspended, and Defendants need notrespond to these motions filed by the Plaintiff. If the Court approves the Reportand Re commendation, all of the foregoing listedmotions will be rendered moot, and if the Court does not approve the Report and Recommendation, the Court will by order set a new briefing schedule with respect to the said motions.(Objections to R&R due by 11/3/2011) Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 10/20/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
9
10

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
LUIS GALEGO,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
JOHN SCOTT, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

) Case No. 3:10-cv-00758-ECR-VPC
)
)
)
)
) ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

On March 30, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment

18

(#13). Subsequently on March 31, the Court entered an order (#16) calling

19

Plaintiff’s attention to the requirements of the Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d

20

409 (9th Cir. 1988), and Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998), cases in

21

opposing the motion for summary judgment, including the need to file affidavits

22

and other evidence to oppose the motion. The Court further ordered (#16) that

23

Plaintiff’s response to the motion was required to be filed within 21 days and

24

Defendants’ reply would be due 14 days after Plaintiff’s response to the motion

25

was filed.

26

Plaintiff failed to timely file a response to the Defendants’ motion for

27

summary judgment (#13) as required by our order (#16). On May 4, 2011,

28

Magistrate Judge Cooke entered a further order (#20) extending the time for

1

Plaintiff to respond to the motion for summary judgment to Wednesday, May 18,

2

2011. Plaintiff still failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment within

3

the extended time allowed by the Magistrate Judge’s order (#20).

4

Months later on September 8, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed her Report

5

and Recommendation (#26), recommending that Defendants’ motion for

6

summary judgment (#13) be granted. Although Plaintiff never responded to the

7

motion, the Magistrate Judge carefully reviewed the record and rendered her

8

Report and Recommendation based on the merits of the action.

9

On September 15, 2011, Plaintiff filed motions (#27) and (#35) for

10

enlargement of time to file his opposition to the Defendants’ motion for summary

11

judgment. Such motions were filed several months late, well beyond the time

12

within which such enlargement might have been sought. Plaintiff was duly

13

warned when his opposition to the motion was due and the time was extended in

14

May for the filing of the opposition. Plaintiff is too late.

15

On September 16, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion (#28) for summary

16

judgment and motion to strike (#32). On September 19, 2011, Plaintiff filed a

17

motion (#29) for judgment on the pleadings and motion (#30) for summary

18

judgment. On September 20, 2011, Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss (#33)

19

counterclaim. On September 22, 2011, Defendants filed a motion for extension

20

of time (#36) requesting that the Court grant them time to respond to these

21

motions by Plaintiff, if necessary, until after the Court rules on the Report and

22

Recommendation.

23
24

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for enlargement of
time (#27) and (#35) treated as such are DENIED.

25

However, the motions for enlargement of time (#27) and (#35) were filed

26

within the 14 day period allowed by the Local Rules for filing objections to the

27

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. Defendants (#37) do not

28

oppose the motions of Plaintiff (#27) and (#35) as motions for enlargement of
2

1

time to file objections to the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate

2

Judge (#26). The Court will therefore treat the motions (#27) and (#35) for this

3

purpose as motions for enlargement of time to file objections to the Magistrate

4

Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#26) and on that basis,

5

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have 14 days from the date of entry of

6

this order within which to file objections to the Report and Recommendation

7

(#26) of the Magistrate Judge.

8
9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion to extend time (#36)
is GRANTED. Therefore, pending the Court’s decision on the Report and

10

Recommendation (#26) of the Magistrate Judge, briefing on Plaintiff’s motions

11

(#28), (#29), (#30), (#32), and (#33) will be suspended, and Defendants need not

12

respond to these motions filed by the Plaintiff. If the Court approves the Report

13

and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (#26), all of the foregoing listed

14

motions will be rendered moot, and if the Court does not approve the Magistrate

15

Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#26), the Court will by order set a new

16

briefing schedule with respect to the said motions.

17

Dated this 20th day of October 2011.

18
19

_____________________________
EDWARD C. REED, JR.
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3