Markus Cleveland v. Officer WalkeWizc
This text of Markus Cleveland v. Officer WalkeWizc (Markus Cleveland v. Officer WalkeWizc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nebraska primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN TFHOER U TNHIET EDDIS STTRAITCETS O DFI NSTERBIRCATS CKOAU RT
MARKUS CLEVELAND,
Plaintiff, 8:23-CV-164
vs. ORDER OFFICER WALKEWIZC, Police Officer,
Defendant.
The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks additional time to respond to the defendant's motion for summary judgment (filing 35). Filing 41. Having considered the appropriate factors, see Afr. Am. Voting Rts. Legal Def. Fund, Inc. v. Villa, 54 F.3d 1345, 1350-51 (8th Cir. 1995), the Court will grant the extension. While pro se parties are not excused from complying with this Court's rules, see Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 856 (8th Cir. 1996), it is appears from the plaintiff's motion that he may have been confused about what was pending and the deadline to respond. See filing 41. The Court notes, however, that this is not the first time the plaintiff has failed to appear or respond when he should have. See filing 33; filing 39. The plaintiff is advised that no further extensions of his summary judgment response deadline will be granted, and failing to respond or comply with any other court orders may separately warrant dismissal of his case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to prosecute. See Schooley v. Kennedy, 712 F.2d 372, 373-74 (8th Cir. 1983). The plaintiff's attention is also drawn to this Court's local rules,1 particularly NECivR 56.1, which explains in detail how to properly respond to a motion for summary judgment.
1 Available online at https://www.ned.uscourts.gov/attorney/local-rules. IT IS ORDERED:
1. The plaintiff's motion to extend (filing 41) is granted.
2. The plaintiff shall respond to the defendant's motion for summary judgment (filing 35) on or before May 7, 2026.
3. Should the plaintiff file a timely response to the motion for summary judgment, the defendant may reply in support of his motion on or before May 21, 2026.
Dated this 7th day of April, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
hn M. Gerrard enior United States District Judge
-2-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Markus Cleveland v. Officer WalkeWizc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/markus-cleveland-v-officer-walkewizc-ned-2026.