Heuer v. Astrue, No. 2:2011cv00051 - Document 17 (E.D. Mo. 2011)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief In Support of Complaint is GRANTED IN PART. [Doc. 16 ]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED th at Plaintiff's brief is due by December 13, 2011. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff will be granted no further extensions of time to file her brief in support of her complaint. (Social Security Brief due by 12/13/2011). Signed by Magistrate Judge Nannette A Baker on 11/29/11. (TRC)
Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI NORTHERN DIVISION ELIZABETH J. HEUER, Plaintiff, vs. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:11-CV-00051-NAB MEMORANDUM OPINION ON PLAINTIFF S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF Presently before the Court is Plaintiff s second Motion for Extension of Time to File a Brief in support of her Social Security Complaint. [Doc. 16]. Defendant did not respond to the motion. Having fully considered the arguments set forth by Plaintiff, the Court grants the Motion for Extension of Time in part. Discussion On November 21, 2011, Plaintiff filed her second Motion for Extension of Time to file a brief in support of her complaint. Plaintiff seeks a thirty day extension. Previously, the Court entered an order granting Plaintiff s first Motion for Extension of Time to file her brief. [Doc. 15]. The Court granted Plaintiff a thirty day extension. Id. In that order, the Court stated that [n]o further extensions will be granted without due cause. See Id. In the present motion, Plaintiff s counsel fails to provide the Court with any reason for why he needs an additional thirty days to prepare Plaintiff s brief. Therefore, finding that Plaintiff has failed to show due cause for an additional thirty day extension, the Court will only grant Plaintiff an additional 1 fourteen (14) days from the date of this order to file her brief. No further extensions will be granted. Conclusion Based on the above analysis, the Court finds that Plaintiff s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief In Support of Complaint should be GRANTED IN PART. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief In Support of Complaint is GRANTED IN PART. [Doc. 16]. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff s brief is due by December 13, 2011. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff will be granted no further extensions of time to file her brief in support of her complaint. Dated this 29th day of November, 2011. /s/ Nannette A. Baker NANNETTE A. BAKER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2