Walter G. Dedge, Jr. v. Steve Kendrick

Eleventh Circuit

Walter G. Dedge, Jr. v. Steve Kendrick

849 F.2d 1398, 11 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 899, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 9836, 1988 WL 66968

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJuly 21, 1988

Docket87-3870

StatusPublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 849 F.2d 1398 (Walter G. Dedge, Jr. v. Steve Kendrick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walter G. Dedge, Jr. v. Steve Kendrick, 849 F.2d 1398, 11 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 899, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 9836, 1988 WL 66968 (11th Cir. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The defendant, Steve Kendrick, appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(2), the district court is required to enter an order limiting the time to file and hear motions. In this case, the district court entered an order requiring that motions for summary judgment be filed by October 30, 1987. The defendant filed his motion for summary judgment on December 7, 1987. Therefore, the district court properly denied the motion as untimely, and we need not address the merits of the motion in this appeal. See United States Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099, 1104 (9th Cir.1985).

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

The defendant, Steve Kendrick, appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion for summary judgment. Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b)(2), the district court is required to enter an order limiting the time to file and hear motions. In this case, the district court entered an order requiring that motions for summary judgment be filed by October 30, 1987. The defendant filed his motion for summary judgment on December 7, 1987. Therefore, the district court properly denied the motion as untimely, and we need not address the merits of the motion in this appeal. See United States Dominator, Inc. v. Factory Ship Robert E. Resoff, 768 F.2d 1099, 1104 (9th Cir.1985).

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

849 F.2d 1398, 11 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 899, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 9836, 1988 WL 66968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walter-g-dedge-jr-v-steve-kendrick-ca11-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack