Judges Order 7/10/95

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


     William Thomas, et. al.       |          C.A. No. 94-2747
           Plaintiffs pro se,      |          Judge Charles R. Richey
                                   |
               v.                  |
                                   |
     The United States, et. al.    |
           Defendants.             |

ORDER

The Court is in receipt of the Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time within which to respond to the Federal Defendants' Ruply to the Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Defendants' Summary Judgtment. As a prelimnary matter, the Court observes that, although the Court granted by Order entered June 2, 1995 the Defendants' Motion for Enlargement of Time until June 22, 1995 to file their Reply to the Plaintiffs' Opposition, and although the Plaintiffs refer to said Reply in their instant Motion, no Reply has been filed with the official records of this Court. Nor has Chambers received a copy of any Reply. As there appears to have been some error, the Court shall direct the Defendants to file said Reply with the Court and with Chambers immediately.

In addition, the rules do not allow for the filing of a response to a Reply. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' Motion for an Extension of Time shall be denied.

2

The Court also observes that the Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on July 7, 1995. The Court will therefore set a schedule for the briefing of this Motion. The Court further observes that the Defendants have not filed any response to the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's April 12, 1995 Order. Accordingly, the Court shall set a schedule for the briefing of the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Reconsideration as well. The Court shall address both parties' dispositive Motions and Motions for Partial Reconsideration[1] in one Opinion and Order, once all pending Motions are ripe.

Accordingly, it is, by the Court, this10th day of July, 1995,

ORDERED that the Defendants shall file their Reply to the Plaintiffs' Opposition to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint or, in the alternative for Summary Judgment in their Favor immediately upon receipt of this Order and, in any event, no later than 4:00 p.m. on July 14, 1995; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs' "Motion for Enlargement of Time shall be, and hereby is, DENIED; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants shall file Oppositions to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial REconsideration of the Court's April 12, 1995 Order and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on or before 4:00 p.m. on July 17, 1995; and it is

[1 On May 15, 1995, the Defendants filed a Motion for Parital Reconsideration of the Court's April 12, 1995 Order along with their Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment in their Favor.]

3

FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs may file Replies thereto on or before 4:00 p.m. on July 24, 1995



_______________________
CHARLES R. RICHEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE