Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Motions
Judges

HARRY J. BROWN, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant.

Richard G. Kopf

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before me on Defendant's Motion to Extend. (Filing 16.) In the Motion, Defendant asks me to extend the time in which to respond to Plaintiff's Brief until July 31, 2013. ( Id .) Defendant had previously filed an unopposed Motion to Extend that is still pending. (Filing 15.) On July 31, 2013, Defendant filed a Brief in Support of the Administrative Decision and in Reply to Plaintiff's Brief. (Filing 17.)

For good cause shown, Defendant's Motion to Extend (filing 16) is granted and Defendant's July 31, 2013, Brief is deemed timely filed. The remaining briefing schedule will be extended as set forth below. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that:

1. Defendant's Motion to Extend (filing 16) is granted.
2. Defendant's Brief filed July 31, 2013, is deemed timely filed;
3. Plaintiff may file a reply brief by August 9, 2013;
4. This case shall be ripe for decision on August 12, 2013; and
5. Defendant's unopposed Motion to Extend (filing 15) is denied as moot.





BY THE COURT:

Richard G. Kopf


Senior United States District Judge


*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Brown v. Colvin
(Aug 1, 2013)