Koerner v. Cox et al

Filing 77

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke, on 3/14/2013, denying 75 Motion for Magistrate Judge to Reconsider Magistrate Judge Order 73 . (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
KELLY KOERNER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JAMES GREG COX, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)
PRESENT:

3:11-CV-0116-LRH (VPC)
MINUTES OF THE COURT

THE HONORABLE VALERIE P. COOKE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEPUTY CLERK:

LISA MANN

REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of order #73 (#75) is DENIED. Plaintiff has been
granted an extension of time to Friday, April 12, 2013, a total of 127 days, to file an opposition
to defendants’ motion for summary judgment (#64).
Again the court acknowledges that plaintiff is experiencing certain medical issues;
however, plaintiff has managed to now file five separate motions with the court since the onset of
his current medical situation (#s 66, 69, 71, 72 & 75). Perhaps plaintiff’s time and effort would
be better spent preparing an opposition to defendants’ motion for summary judgment (#64). The
court will not grant any further extensions of time for any reason.
Plaintiff was given notice of the motion pursuant to the requirements of Klingele v.
Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1988), and Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 1998)
(#65). Plaintiff is advised that pursuant to Local Rule 7-2(d), the failure of an opposing party to
file points and authorities in response to any motion shall constitute a consent to the granting of
the motion. If plaintiff fails to timely file an opposition, the motion will be submitted to the
court for decision as unopposed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk