Tatum v. Amer Natl Red Cross, et al, No. 07-31167 (5th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 07-31167 Conference Calendar December 10, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk VERNON J TATUM, JR Plaintiff-Appellant v. POLICE JURY OF CALCASIEU PARISH; AMERICAN NATIONAL RED CROSS; TONY MANCUSO, in his capacity as Sheriff of Calcasieu Parish Defendants-Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:07-CV-705 Before DAVIS, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Vernon J. Tatum, Jr., appeals the district court s grant of the defendants motions to dismiss his complaint as prescribed. Tatum argues that the district court abused its discretion by granting him only 15 additional days to respond to the motions to dismiss instead of the 30 days he requested. The final motion to dismiss was filed on May 8, 2007. Tatum initially moved for an extension of time to respond to the motions to dismiss on June 5, * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 07-31167 2007, and he cured the final deficiency of that motion on July 5, 2007. As Tatum filed the motion for extension of time after the time for responding to the motions to dismiss had expired, he was required to show excusable neglect. See FED. R. CIV. P. 6(b)(1)(B). The district court granted Tatum 15 additional days to file his response to the motion to dismiss in the middle of October 2007, and it did not rule on the motions to dismiss until November 5, 2007. Tatum had almost eight months from the filing of the final motion to dismiss to respond. Tatum, however, did not ever file a response to the motions to dismiss in the district court, and he has still not stated what arguments he would have raised in such a response. Tatum has not shown that the district court abused its discretion by refusing to fully grant his motion for extension of time. See Adams v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Conn., 465 F.3d 156, 161-62 (5th Cir. 2006). AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.