Holt v. Nicholas et al

Filing 119

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 113 Motion for Court Ordered Status Update as Moot, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 11/13/13. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

VIRGIL E. HOLT,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
R. NICHOLAS, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00800-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR COURT ORDERED STATUS UPDATE
AS MOOT
[ECF No. 113]

Plaintiff Virgil E. Holt is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for a court ordered status update. In his

20

motion, Plaintiff requests the status the Findings and Recommendations which were issued on

21

February 12, 2013.

22

On September 27, 2013, in the light of the procedural posture of the case, the District Judge

23

declined to adopt the Findings and Recommendation, denied Defendants’ motion for summary

24

judgment without prejudice to re-filing, and directed Plaintiff to either file a new motion to compel

25

discovery responses, or inform the Court that a motion to compel is no longer necessary.

26
27
28

On October 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration of the September 27, 2013,
order granting Defendants the opportunity to file a second motion for summary judgment.
On October 28, 2013, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
1

1
2
3
4

On October 30, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the Defendants to produce and provide
discovery. (ECF No. 118.)
Inasmuch as the Court has ruled on the Findings and Recommendation dated February 12,
2013, Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to provide a status update is DENIED as MOOT.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 13, 2013
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2