MELVIN v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 5:14-cv-170-F. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20150422b52
Visitors: 13
Filed: Apr. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Apr. 21, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. FOX , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs three motions for extension oftime [DE-82; DE-84; DE-85]. In the first two motions, Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file response to the motion to dismiss filed by the Social Security Administration. In the third motion, Plaintiff seeks a further extension oftime to file a response to the Social Security Administration's motion to dismiss, and an extension of time to respond to Defendant Meyma
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. FOX , Senior District Judge . This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs three motions for extension oftime [DE-82; DE-84; DE-85]. In the first two motions, Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file response to the motion to dismiss filed by the Social Security Administration. In the third motion, Plaintiff seeks a further extension oftime to file a response to the Social Security Administration's motion to dismiss, and an extension of time to respond to Defendant Meyman..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. FOX, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiffs three motions for extension oftime [DE-82; DE-84; DE-85]. In the first two motions, Plaintiff seeks an extension of time to file response to the motion to dismiss filed by the Social Security Administration. In the third motion, Plaintiff seeks a further extension oftime to file a response to the Social Security Administration's motion to dismiss, and an extension of time to respond to Defendant Meymandi Assad's motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs motions [DE-82; DE-84; DE-85] are ALLOWED to the extent that she seeks extensions oftime, and she has until April 30, 2015, to file a response to the motions to dismiss [DE-51; DE-74].
Plaintiff also moves the court "not to replace plaintiffs facts, words and claims that Plaintiff has written and alleged in the First Amended Complaint with those fabricated and created by the federal attorneys, [Defendant Assad's attorneys] or others." [DE-82] at 6. Plaintiff should be assured that the court will view her Amended Complaint like any other filing from any litigant in this court. What she files with this court is what the court will review. Accordingly, her request is DENIED as moot, as it is unnecessary.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
