Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Simonton v. Tennis

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


June 2, 2010

TERRY SIMONTON, JR., PLAINTIFF
v.
FRANKLIN TENNIS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Conner

ORDER

AND NOW, this 2nd day of June, 2010, upon consideration of defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 (Doc. 28), to which plaintiff has failed to respond by filing a response brief, see L.R. 7.6 ("Any party opposing any motion shall file a responsive brief... [or] shall be deemed not to oppose such motion."), and a response to defendants' statement of material facts (Doc. 29), see L.R. 56.1 ("The papers opposing a motion for summary judgment shall include a separate, short and concise statement of the material facts, responding to the numbered paragraphs set forth in the statement [of material facts filed by the moving party]..., as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be tried."), and it further appearing that rather than responding to defendants' motion for summary judgment on or before May 20, 2010, as previously directed (Doc. 32), he moves for an extension of time (Docs. 33, 34), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion (Docs. 33, 34) is GRANTED to the extent that he shall file a brief in response to the motion in accordance with L.R. 7.6 and a response to defendants' statement of material facts in accordance with L.R. 56.1 on or before July 16, 2010.

2. Failure to comply with this order may result in the motion being deemed unopposed or dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b) ("If the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it."); Link v. Wabash R.R. Co., 370 U.S. 626, 630-31 (1962) (interpreting Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) as permitting sua sponte dismissals by the court); Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 747 F.2d 863, 868 (3d Cir. 1984).

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER United States District Judge

20100602

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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