Campbell v. Duke

Filing 9

ORDER that the pro se Plaintiffs Reply In Opposition To Defendants Motion For Extension Of Time (Document No. 8) is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 2/6/18. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(mga)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-707-RJC-DCK
RICKY W. CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
ELAINE C. DUKE,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on pro se “Plaintiff’s Reply In Opposition
To Defendant’s Motion For Extension Of Time” (Document No. 8) filed February 6, 2018, which
the Court construes as a “Motion For Reconsideration” of its Order granting Defendant an
extension on February 1, 2018 (Document No. 7).

This motion has been referred to the

undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is
appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the
undersigned will deny the motion.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the pro se “Plaintiff’s Reply In Opposition To
Defendant’s Motion For Extension Of Time” (Document No. 8) is DENIED.

Signed: February 6, 2018