Scott v. Cunningham

Filing 139

ORDER granting 118 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendants responses to ECF Nos. 101 and 111 are due January 24, 2012; to ECF No. 109 is due January 26, 2012; to ECF No. 63, 85, 94 are due January 30, 2012; andto Plaintiffs objections to ECF Nos. 105-107 (ECF Nos. not yet assigned) are due January 30, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

5
6

RICHARD ROY SCOTT,
7
Plaintiff,
8

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO
RESPOND

v.
9
10

NO. C11-5509 BHS/KLS

KELLY CUNNINGHAM,
Defendant.

11

Before the Court is Defendant’s motion (ECF No. 118) for an extension of time to
12

respond to Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 63, 85, 94, 101, 1021, 109, 111 and his objections

13
(no ECF Nos. yet) to the Court’s Reports and Recommendations at ECF Nos. 105-107.
14
Plaintiff does not object. ECF No. 127.
15
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
16
(1)

Defendants’ motion for an extension (ECF No. 118) is GRANTED.

(2)

Defendant’s responses to ECF Nos. 101 and 111 are due January 24, 2012; to

17
18
ECF No. 109) is due January 26, 2012; to ECF No. 63, 85, 94 are due January 30, 2012; and
19
to Plaintiff’s objections to ECF Nos. 105-107 (ECF Nos. not yet assigned) are due January
20
30, 2012.
21
//
22
//
23
24
1

25
26

Plaintiff’s “Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order at ECF No. 102 does not require a
response. Pursuant to the case management order, any motions for temporary relief must first be reviewed by the
judge and the defendant need not file a response to the motion unless directed to do so by the judge.

ORDER - 1

1
2

(3)

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to Plaintiff and to counsel for

Defendants.

3
4
5

DATED this 17th day of January, 2012.

A

6
7

Karen L. Strombom
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER - 2