Free Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

`_'_"“"
Case 3:00-cv—00339-RNC Document 106 Filed 08/12/ébggrv '1"gf’*1III*"\€· I
..····"""*“ 9 I I
\ 0 Im]? I? · I
WT .`.rr~ I
i...¤‘I Ina;] A I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I ` —· I
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT I I L I ,_ I:__ _ _ _
·k*******************•k****•k*•k*·k*·k*·A•******** I. I Il
THOMAS O’CONNOR * Docket No. 3:00 CV 339 (RNC) |
Plaintiff, * _ I
* C,yw—-/ I
V. : I
_ LYNNE B. PIERSON, etal. *
Defendants. *
* August 9, 2004 I
**k*k*kitit·k·!H¢‘k•k•k•k•k·k*1r*·k·k*·k*****·k*·k*·k•k·k•k·k****·k* _
PLA|NTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME I
Q The plaintiff moves for an extension of time until Monday August 23, 2004 to I
réispond Is the defendant’s Motion to Supplement the Record and for Additional
I`. The plaintiff’s response presently is due August 13, 2004.
. §jjT__;_I {This additional time is needed because plaintiffs counsel was in the midst of I
_ -.-.== litjgationfor most of July in a case on the Complex Litigation Docket in Middletown I
°`·? §d’*perior Court encaptioned Duart v. State of Connecticut, Department of Corrections, I
Q I
Tg " I ‘ Docket No.: XO4CV02—0103475-S. Plaintiffs attorney is just now able to turn his w
cu · I
Ig} attention to the pending motion.
ro _ I — I
Ig I I gi Attorney John J. Radshaw, who represents the defendant, has been consulted
[jg y II EW and he has no objection to this motion.
_ I I -;*53 This is the parties’ first request for an extension of time to respond to the
Fg I · defendant’s motion to dismiss.
IQ - Z l
I ii ii I
*3 THE PLAINTIFF, I
Q: I D5
Q .
ra I
. Leon . Rosen Iatt (ct00284)
2 Law Offices of Leon M. Rosenblatt
,_, 10 N. Main Street i
Q West Hanford, CT 06107 I
Q (860) 523-8066
I I
I
··ee ee ii-— e-:... I I ii‘· i rcrr ·s’¤r~rrr·=rrr·-—~-
sh·· —— --ii er I -45. I I ‘‘`i ‘ ‘‘‘` ‘*"*rfrrrfr"·hr`·