Campbell v. Duke, 3:17-CV-707-RJC-DCK. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20180207b57
Visitors: 16
Filed: Feb. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 06, 2018
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. KEESLER , Magistrate Judge . THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on pro se "Plaintiff's Reply In Opposition To Defendant's Motion For Extension Of Time" (Document No. 8) filed February 6, 2018, which the Court construes as a "Motion For Reconsideration" of its Order granting Defendant an extension on February 1, 2018 (Document No. 7). This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having c
Summary: ORDER DAVID C. KEESLER , Magistrate Judge . THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on pro se "Plaintiff's Reply In Opposition To Defendant's Motion For Extension Of Time" (Document No. 8) filed February 6, 2018, which the Court construes as a "Motion For Reconsideration" of its Order granting Defendant an extension on February 1, 2018 (Document No. 7). This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having ca..
More
ORDER
DAVID C. KEESLER, Magistrate Judge.
THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on pro se "Plaintiff's Reply In Opposition To Defendant's Motion For Extension Of Time" (Document No. 8) filed February 6, 2018, which the Court construes as a "Motion For Reconsideration" of its Order granting Defendant an extension on February 1, 2018 (Document No. 7). This motion has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion, the record, and applicable authority, the undersigned will deny the motion.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the pro se "Plaintiff's Reply In Opposition To Defendant's Motion For Extension Of Time" (Document No. 8) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
