Wendell A. Miles Senior U.S. District Judge
This matter is currently before the court on plaintiff's motion for relief (docket no. 18) from the court's Opinion and Order (filed March 28, 2000) granting the United States' motion to dismiss.
In his motion plaintiff expresses the belief that the court, through inadvertence, overlooked his request for an enlargement of time, contained within plaintiff's motion to strike the United States' motion to dismiss (docket no. 15). However, the court did not overlook this request. Plaintiff filed his motion to strike on July 13, 1999. In his motion, he did include an alternative request, seeking an extension of time in the event that the court denied his motion to strike. However, in seeking an extension plaintiff failed to indicate the length of the extension which he sought — and he never followed through on his request by submitting a proposed response. The court did not issue its ruling on the merits of the United States' motion until March 28, 2000, over eight and one-half months later, with plaintiff still having failed to indicate his readiness to file a response. Therefore, in its ruling the court observed that plaintiff had not responded to the motion, apart from moving to strike. Opinion and Order on the United States' Motion to Dismiss, at 1, n 1.
In his motion plaintiff also expresses the belief that the court, through inadvertence, overlooked his motion for summary judgment, included with his response to the United States' motion for extension of time (docket no. 6). However, the court did not overlook this request either. On March 28, 2000, the same date on which the court filed its Opinion and Order on the United States' Motion to Dismiss, the court also filed its Opinion and Order on Plaintiff's Motions to Strike and on Plaintiff's Motions for Summary Judgment. In seeking summary judgment in his favor, plaintiff had expressly stated as follows:
The basis for Plaintiff's MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT is that DEFENDANT has failed to timely respond to Plaintiff's COMPLAINT as required by FRCP 12(a)(3).
The court denied this request, observing that what plaintiff in reality wanted was a default judgment against the United States, to which he was not entitled.
The court denies plaintiff's motion for relief in its entirety.