Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02638/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-02638-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mark Gunn Lloyd, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

Joseph M. Arpaio, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-2638-PHX-PGR 

 

 ORDER

Pending before the Court is the defendants’ Rule 56(f) Motion to Continue

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Until

Discovery is Completed, filed May 19, 2008, wherein the defendants request that

they be allowed to conduct discovery for three months prior to having to respond

to the plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. A review of the record establishes

that the plaintiff has to date failed to file any response to the motion notwithstanding that the Court, pursuant to an order entered on May 1, 2008 (doc. #30), 

stated that the plaintiff had 30 days after the Rule 56(f) motion was filed to file his

response to it. The Court deems the plaintiff’s failure to respond to the Rule 56(f)

motion as his consent to the granting of the motion pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i).

Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the defendants’ Rule 56(f) Motion to Continue

Case 2:07-cv-02638-RCB Document 46 Filed 07/02/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

- 2 -

Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment Until

Discovery is Completed (doc. #32) is granted pursuant to LRCiv 7.2(i) to the

extent that the defendants shall file their response to the plaintiff’s Motion for

Summary Judgment no later than September 29, 2008.

DATED this 2nd day of July, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-02638-RCB Document 46 Filed 07/02/08 Page 2 of 2