Messner v. Hickman Co. of Judicial

Filing 78

ORDER : Plaintiff's counsel has filed a motion to extend time to respond to the pending motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry 77 ). This motion is GRANTED. The Plaintiff's response shall be due on or before August 26, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 8/13/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(la)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
COLUMBIA DIVISION
STEVEN C. MESSNER,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff
v.
HICKMAN COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants

No. 1:11-0059
Judge Campbell/Brown
Jury Demand

O R D E R
Plaintiff’s counsel has filed a motion to extend time to
respond to the pending motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry
77). This motion is GRANTED. The Plaintiff’s response shall be due
on or before August 26, 2013.1
Plaintiff’s footnote cites Rule 6(1)(b), however, there
is no such rule. The Magistrate Judge assumes that this is intended
to refer to Rule 6(a)(1)(B).
It is so ORDERED.
/s/ Joe B. Brown
JOE B. BROWN
United States Magistrate Judge

1

The Magistrate Judge is puzzled by the statement that counsel
miscalculated the deadline for response by approximately one week. The
scheduling order in this case (Docket Entry 44, ¶ L) provides that a
response is due 28 days after the motion is filed. The motion for summary
judgment was filed on July 10, 2013. Thus, 28 days later, would be August
7, 2013, if three days were allowed for service by email, a response
would be due August 12, 2013 (Rule 6(d)). August 28 is over two weeks
after that deadline.