SAPP v. VILSACK, 11-6085-CV-SJ-JTM. (2012)
Court: District Court, W.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20120418c44
Visitors: 12
Filed: Apr. 17, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 17, 2012
Summary: ORDER JOHN T. MAUGHMER, Magistrate Judge. Pending before the Court is plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file a proposed scheduling order and for reconsideration of this Court's denial of the appointment of counsel. For the same reasons as those set forth in the October 14, 2011 ORDER [Doc 4], plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Nevertheless, plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file a proposed scheduling order is GRANTED . The parties shall ha
Summary: ORDER JOHN T. MAUGHMER, Magistrate Judge. Pending before the Court is plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file a proposed scheduling order and for reconsideration of this Court's denial of the appointment of counsel. For the same reasons as those set forth in the October 14, 2011 ORDER [Doc 4], plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Nevertheless, plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file a proposed scheduling order is GRANTED . The parties shall hav..
More
ORDER
JOHN T. MAUGHMER, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file a proposed scheduling order and for reconsideration of this Court's denial of the appointment of counsel. For the same reasons as those set forth in the October 14, 2011 ORDER [Doc 4], plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel is DENIED. Nevertheless, plaintiff's request for an extension of time to file a proposed scheduling order is GRANTED. The parties shall have up to and including May 14, 2012 to file a joint proposed scheduling order pursuant to the guidelines set forth in the January 18, 2012 ORDER [Doc 11]. Plaintiff's further discussion of specific evidence and request that the Court "find in favor of my civil suit" is premature and not yet ripe for consideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
