COLTHARP v. COLVIN, 15-CV-110-CVE-FHM. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
Number: infdco20160201e42
Visitors: 32
Filed: Jan. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Jan. 29, 2016
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER FRANK H. McCARTHY , Magistrate Judge . Defendant's Response Brief does not meet the requirements stated in the Scheduling Order. [Dkt. 7]. The Defendant's brief contains eight pages of argument, not divided into sub-section for each error raised by Plaintiff. Defendant has until February 19, 2016, in which to file a brief reformatted to conform to the requirements set out in the Scheduling Order. SO ORDERED.
OPINION AND ORDER
FRANK H. McCARTHY, Magistrate Judge.
Defendant's Response Brief does not meet the requirements stated in the Scheduling Order. [Dkt. 7]. The Defendant's brief contains eight pages of argument, not divided into sub-section for each error raised by Plaintiff. Defendant has until February 19, 2016, in which to file a brief reformatted to conform to the requirements set out in the Scheduling Order.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
