Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BYRD v. MOSELEY

September 16, 1996

SAMUEL L. BYRD, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM E. MOSELEY, DIRECTOR, TAKE IT FROM ME, INC.; TAKE IT FROM ME, INC.; DAVID D. ROACH, WARDEN, Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: RICHEY

 The Court is in receipt of a letter -- a copy of which is attached hereto -- written by the plaintiff, dated September 11, 1996, requesting an extension of time within which to file an opposition to the defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment on the ground that he was placed in the segregation unit from September 7th through the 11th of this year. The Court received the letter on September 16, 1996. The plaintiff's letter does not comply with the Local Rules and the Court must grant leave before the plaintiff will be allowed to file the letter with this Court.

 On May 17, 1996 the Court advised the plaintiff by Order that he would have until 4:00 p.m. on June 21, 1996 in which to file any and all oppositions to any dispositive motions filed by the defendants. The Court further ordered that any affidavit or declaration filed by the defendants in support of their dispositive motions would be taken as true unless the plaintiff submitted his own affidavits or other documentary evidence contradicting the same. In addition, the Court ordered that summary judgment in favor of the defendants may be granted on the basis of any such uncontroverted allegations.

 Notwithstanding the foregoing, the plaintiff was allowed leave to amend its complaint, and the time within which to file oppositions to the defendants' dispositive motions was extended, at the request of the plaintiff, to and until September 1, 1996. This occurred long before the defendant was placed in the segregation unit.

 Failing to receive any opposition from the plaintiff within the prescribed period of time, the Court issued a judgment in this case and dismissed it from its docket on September 16, 1996, before the plaintiff's letter reached Chambers of the undersigned Judge. For all of the above reasons, the Court will not grant the plaintiff leave to file the letter requesting an extension of time within which to file his opposition to the defendants' dispositive motions in light of the fact that the plaintiff has been given every opportunity to comply with the Court's deadlines, which are more than reasonable. Accordingly, it is, by the Court, this 16th day of September, 1996,

 ORDERED that the Court shall, and hereby does, DENY the plaintiff leave to file its request for an extension of time within which to file any and all oppositions to the defendants' dispositive motions; and, it is

 CHARLES R. RICHEY

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19960916

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.