ORDER granting 19 Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to file an answer or a first responsive pleading. The UT Austin defendants shall file a response by July¶

Stewart v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center et al, No. 5:23-cv-00007-H (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 20 · 2023-05-05 · PDF

Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.

Case 5:23-cv-00007-H

Document 20

Filed 05/05/23

Page 1 of 1

PageID 151

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
GEORGE STEWART,
P1aintiff,

No, 5:23-CV-O07-H
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEAITH
SCIENCES CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
Before the Court is the University of Texas at Austin, Jay Hartzell, Claudia

Lucchinetti, Steve Smith, and Joel Daboub's (collectively, the UT Austin Defendants)
second unopposed motion for an extension of time to file an answer or a fust responsive

pleading. Dkt. No. 19. The UT Austin Defendants seek an additional60-day extension to
respond to the complaint because the Office of the Attomey General strll "has declined to
either provide representation or authorize the hiring ofoutside counse1." Id.at2. Because
the plaintiffis unopposed to an extension and for the reasons stated in the motion, the

motion is granted. The UT Austin defendants sha11 file a response by July 11, 2023. Any
responsive pleading f,led by July 1l , 2023, shall be deemed timely.
So ordered on May

i

, 2023.

JA

b.

S WESLEY HENDRIX

TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE