Brown v. Mohr et al

Filing 282

DECISION AND ORDER- For these reasons, and for the reasons stated in the Courts previous Order (Doc. # 274 ), Plaintiff is not entitled to a 30-day extension. He shall file his response to Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment by July 16, 2019. No f urther extension will be permitted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:Plaintiffs Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Summary Judgment (Doc. # 280 ) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington on 7/2/19. (kma)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Steven S. Brown,

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

Plaintiff,
vs.
Director Mohr, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:13-cv-00006
District Judge George C. Smith
Magistrate Judge Sharon L. Ovington

DECISION AND ORDER
The Court previously granted Plaintiff an extension of time, until June 17, 2019, to
respond to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court also placed Plaintiff
on Final Notice that Defendants’ Motion for Summary would be ripe on June 18, 2019
even if he did not file a timely response. Plaintiff did not file a timely Memorandum in
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, and the Motion became ripe
on June 18, 2019. Two days later, Plaintiff filed the presently pending untimely Motion
for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc.
#280). He seeks at least a 30-day extension of the deadline to respond to Defendants’
Motion. Defendants contend that Plaintiff has not shown good cause for granting him
another extension. (Doc. #281).
The reasons Plaintiff provides in support of his request for another extension were
addressed and found wanting in the Court’s previous Order. (Doc. #278). It is worth
observing that this case is more than 6 years old and that the pivotal summary-judgment

stage has arrived. This stage is pivotal because in a summary-judgment motion, “the
movant could challenge the opposing party to ‘put up or shut up’ on a critical issue.” See
Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1478 (6th Cir. 1989). Defendants have
essentially done so in their Motion for Summary Judgment.
Additionally, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is now ripe for decision
even though he has not filed a timely response to it. The Court previously notified
Plaintiff that this would be the situation as of June 18, 2019. (Doc. #278, PageID
#5239). The case, moreover, has drawn heavily from the Court’s limited resources and
continues to do so. This, of course, says nothing about the merits of the parties’
contentions. But this fact combined with the elderly age of the case create the pressing
need for the Court and the parties—including Plaintiff—to keep the case moving
forward.
For these reasons, and for the reasons stated in the Court’s previous Order (Doc.
#274), Plaintiff is not entitled to a 30-day extension. He shall file his response to
Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment by July 16, 2019. No further extension will
be permitted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Time to Respond to Summary Judgment (Doc. #280)
is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above.

July 2, 2019

s/Sharon L. Ovington
Sharon L. Ovington
United States Magistrate Judge
2