Morgal v. Arpaio et al

Filing 150

ORDER that the time frames set forth in 143 Magistrate Judge's Order are VACATED. After review of 147 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court re 144 Order on Motion to Amend, this court shall, issue an order setting forth new time frames with respect to defendant's pending renewed summary judgment motion. Signed by Senior Judge Robert C Broomfield on 4/30/12. (LSP)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9
10 Allan Kenneth Morgal,
11

Plaintiff,

12

vs.

13 Maricopa County Board of

Supervisors,
14

Defendant.
15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV 07-0670-PHX-RCB
O R D E R

On April 13, 2012, plaintiff pro se Allan Kenneth Morgal

17 filed a “Notice to the Court” advising that he “never
18 received” the “Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment” (Doc. 142)
19 filed by the defendant on March 22, 2012.
20 1.

Not. (Doc. 149) at

Plaintiff does acknowledge receiving, however, the March

21 23, 2012, order by the Honorable Edward C. Voss, United States
22 Magistrate which, among other things, ordered plaintiff to
23 file a response to that defense motion by no later than April
24 23, 2012.
25

Id.

Given plaintiff’s pending “Review of Magistrates [sic]

26 Order # 144[][,]” denying plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to
27 file an amended complaint (Doc. 147),
28

IT IS ORDERED that the time frames set forth in the

1

Magistrate Judge’s March 23, 2012, are vacated.

2

resolution of plaintiff’s pending “Review” of the Magistrate

3

Judge’s order denying plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to

4

amend, this court shall, issue an order setting forth new

5

time frames with respect to defendant’s pending renewed

6

summary judgment motion.

7

address plaintiff’s assertion herein that he never received

8

that motion.

9

At that time, the court will also

DATED this 30th day of April, 2012.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

After

Copies to counsel of record and plaintiff pro se

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-