Shareef v. Donahoe et al

Filing 79

ORDER denying 78 Motion for Stay of Plaintiffs Response to 62 MOTION to Dismiss or In The Alternative, For MOTION for Summary Judgment; Further Ordered Plaintiff shall have up to and including 9/6/2013 to file a response to 62 Motion To Dismiss Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 8/13/2013. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(eef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-615-DCK
KIMBERLY F. SHAREEF,
Plaintiff,
v.
PATRICK R. DONAHOE,
Postmaster General, U.S. Postal Service,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff’s “Motion For Stay Of
Plaintiff’s Response To Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Or, In The Alternative, For Summary
Judgment” (Document No. 78) filed August 13, 2013. The parties have consented to Magistrate
Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and immediate review of this motion is
appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion and the record, the undersigned will deny
the motion for a stay, but allow Plaintiff additional time to respond.
The Court has already allowed Plaintiff two extensions of time to file a response to
“Federal Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Judgment”
(Document No. 62). See (Document Nos. 71 and 76). This matter is currently set for trial during
the term beginning October 28, 2013; as such the pending motions need to be fully briefed in
time for the Court to render decisions and determine whether or not this matter will proceed to
trial. Under these circumstances, the undersigned will deny the request for a stay, but allow
Plaintiff an additional extension of time to file her response. If the Court has not ruled on the
other pending motions (Document Nos. 52 and 63) by August 30, 2013, Plaintiff may again seek
additional time to file a response.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion For Stay Of Plaintiff’s
Response To Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Judgment”
(Document No. 78) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have up to and including September
6, 2013, to file a response to “Federal Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss Or, In The Alternative,
For Summary Judgment” (Document No. 62).
SO ORDERED.

Signed: August 13, 2013

2