Filed: Aug. 02, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 02, 2013
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHN A. ROSS, District Judge. On May 17, 2013, this Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Plaintiff's pro se action for employment discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C, 2000e, et seq. (Doc. No. 72) On May 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file a response to Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 73], a motion for leave to fi
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHN A. ROSS, District Judge. On May 17, 2013, this Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Plaintiff's pro se action for employment discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C, 2000e, et seq. (Doc. No. 72) On May 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file a response to Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 73], a motion for leave to fil..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
JOHN A. ROSS, District Judge.
On May 17, 2013, this Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Plaintiff's pro se action for employment discrimination pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C, §§ 2000e, et seq. (Doc. No. 72)
On May 20, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to file a response to Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 73], a motion for leave to file in excess of fifteen pages [ECF No. 75], as well as his Reply to Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. [ECF No. 76] On June 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Memorandum with the Court stating that he received Defendant's response in opposition to his motion for summary judgment on April 26, 2013, making his reply due on May 17, 2013, the day the Court entered its Order and dismissed his action. [ECF No. 77]1 Because the Court will grant Plaintiff's motion for extension of time and permit him to file his seventeen page reply, Plaintiff's Memorandum/motion for reconsideration will be denied as moot.
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's reply to Defendant's opposition to his summary judgment motion. Plaintiff raises no new arguments either in support of his motion or in opposition to Defendant's motion that could cause the Court to reconsider its previous rulings. For the reasons set out in the Court's May 17 Memorandum and Order and incorporated by reference herein, Plaintiff's reply, construed as a motion for reconsideration, will be denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that Plaintiff's Motion for Two Day Extension [73] and Motion for Leave to File in Excess of Fifteen Pages [75] are GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Memorandum, docketed as a motion for Reconsideration [77] is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, construed as a motion for reconsideration is DENIED.
