ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT ADAIR'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, NUNC PRO TUNC (ECF No. 229.)

ORDER DEEMING DEFENDANT ADAIR'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TIMELY FILED ON APRIL 14, 2017 (ECF No. 224.)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME, NUNC PRO TUNC (ECF No. 233.)

ORDER DEEMING PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TIMELY FILED ON MAY 30, 2017 (ECF No. 238.)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE FOR DEFENDANT ADAIR TO FILE REPLY TO PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION

GARY S. AUSTIN, District Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

Robin Dasenbrock ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on November 14, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint filed on September 8, 2015, against defendants Dr. A. Enenmoh, Correctional Officer Perez-Hernandez,1 Nurse Page, and Nurse Adair, on Plaintiff's claims for violation of the Eighth Amendment and related negligence. (ECF No. 140.)

On May 5, 2017, Defendant Adair ("Defendant") requested an extension of time to file her motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 229.) On June 28, 2017, Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to Defendant's motion for extension of time and requested an extension of time to file his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 256.)

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant Adair seeks an extension of time nunc pro tunc, deeming her motion for summary judgment, filed on April 14, 2017, timely filed. Defendant Adair concedes that her motion for summary judgment was untimely because it was filed after the court's deadline of December 21, 2016, due to excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). Defendant has no objection to allowing additional time for Plaintiff to respond to the motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff responds that he will not oppose any reasonable request for an extension of time by Defendant to file her motion for summary judgment. In fact, Plaintiff requests that the court grant the extension of time and allow the motion for summary judgment filed on April 14, 2017, to remain filed. Plaintiff also requests an extension of time nunc pro tunc, deeming his opposition to the motion for summary judgment, filed on May 30, 2017, timely filed. Plaintiff has no objection to allowing additional time for Defendant to file a reply to the opposition.

Based on the parties' representations, the court finds good cause to grant both parties' motions for extension of time nunc pro tunc, deeming Defendant Adair's motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff's opposition timely filed. Defendant Adair shall be granted thirty days in which to file a reply to Plaintiff's opposition.

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.