In re Planning Conf. Sch. Bef. Magistrate Judge Piester

RICHARD KOPF, District Judge

With the agreement of Judge Piester, the Chief Judge and the other district judges, Judge Kopf has begun handling all magistrate matters previously handled by Judge Piester. Judge Kopf will do so for the foreseeable future regarding his own cases as well as cases assigned to other district judges. Thus, any magistrate matters previously handled by Judge Piester will be handled by Judge Kopf alone unless otherwise ordered and that is true for cases assigned to Judge Kopf and it is also true for cases assigned to other district judges. The district judge assigned to try the cases identified below has not changed.

Telephonic planning conferences are currently scheduled before Magistrate Judge Piester in the following cases:

Hird v. Minden Public Schools, 4:08CV3221

Brown v. SSA Security, 4:08CV3233

Loos v. Napolitano, 4:08cv3241

Gerdes v. Chertoff, 4:08CV3246

Manning v. Internal Medicine, 4:08CV3257

TierOne v. USA, 4:08CV3267

Evanston v. Lexington, 4:09cv3011

Hrdlicka v. Merry Maids, 4:09CV3012

Wise v. Estate of Robert Shocker, 4:09cv3031

Sell v. Am2Pat et al., 4:09CV3036

Kyros v. North American Bioproducts, 4:09CV3041

Brown v. Stafford Plaza, 4:09CV3042

Brown et al. v. Hilton Hotels Corp, 4:09CV3044

Rush Creek v. Home Federal et al., 4:09CV3056

Hill v. Village of Loomis, 4:09CV3061

Gentry v. Duckwall-Alco, 4:09CV3062

Brown v. Grandmother's, 4:09cv3088

Morris et al. v. Koleaseco et al., 7:08CV5009

Fisher et al. v. Goynes et al., 8:07CV378

As to these cases, the court intends to cancel the planning conferences and enter a final progression order based on the parties' Rule 26(f) Report of Parties' Planning Conference. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED:

1) As to those cases listed above, unless a party files a motion to request a telephonic planning conference on or before July 10, 2009, no planning conference will be held to discuss the scheduling of the case to trial, and a final progression order will be entered based on the representations set forth in the parties' Rule 26(f) Report.

2) The clerk is directed to place a copy of this order in the docket for each of the cases identified above.