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.

Corvin v. Bice

March 8, 2007

TIMOTHY CORVIN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DEPUTY MIKE BICE, CHIEF DEPUTY ARGO, AND OFFICER WAYNE COX, CHIEF JUDGE CURTIS L. COLLIER INDIVIDUALLY AND AS OFFICERS OF THE RHEA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND SHERIFF MIKE NEAL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SHERIFF OF RHEA COUNTY, IN CHARGE OF THE RHEA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Curtis L. Collier Chief United States District Judge

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff, Timothy Corvin's ("Plaintiff"), motion for an extension of time to file a response to Defendants, Deputy Mike Bice, Chief Deputy John Argo, Officer Wayne Cox, and Sheriff Mike Neal (collectively "Defendants") motion for partial summary judgment (Court File No. 22). Plaintiff requests that the deadline to respond to Defendants' motion be extended to February 16, 2007. As cause, Plaintiff states his counsel will be out of the state from February 6-11, 2007 and the additional time is necessary to fully answer Defendants' motion. Defendants filed their motion for partial summary judgment on January 9, 2007 (Court File No. 20). Under local rule E.D.TN. LR 7.1., Plaintiff had twenty (20) days after that time to file a response, on or before January 29, 2007. Plaintiff's motion was filed on February 5, 2007 (Court File No. 22).

The Court notes Plaintiff's motion was filed after the deadline to file a response had already passed. Nonetheless, the reasons given by Plaintiff are not sufficient to warrant an extension. When the Court holds a scheduling conference, it informs counsel for both parties they have free reign to pick the deadlines pertaining to the case since they know what is necessary to prepare the case for trial, their schedules, and their client's schedules better than the Court. With that in mind, the Court cautions counsel the dates will not be easily changed. The reasons given by Plaintiff are not compelling enough to ignore previously agreed upon dates. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion (Court File No. 22).

SO ORDERED.

20070308

© 1992-2007 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.