Opinion ID: 465257
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Motion for Continuance

Text: 10 King argues that the district judge abused his discretion by denying her unopposed second ex parte application for a continuance. She argues that although she did not physically appear for the motion, her filed papers constitute an appearance. She then failed to appear for the scheduled hearing of the motion to dismiss on November 7. 11 We cannot conclude on this record that the district judge abused his discretion in denying the motion for continuance. For the first of these motions, the judge extended the deadline for filing papers to October 24, 1983. That deadline expired without any action by King. Faced with an ex parte motion not attended by a movant who had failed to file her response even within an extended filing schedule, the district judge denied the motion for further continuance. Under the circumstances, we can find no abuse of discretion.