Jack v. County of Stanislaus et al

Filing 63

ORDER CORRECTING DOC. NO. 61 NUNC PRO TUNC signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 1/15/2020. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that document No. 61 on Page 1 at the title is CORRECTED NUNC PRO TUNC to now read: "Order On Defendant's Motion For Summary Judgment"; and Document No. 61 on Page 1 in the title, where "(Doc. No. 33)" is identified, is CORRECTED NUNC PRO TUNC to read "(Doc. No. 53)." (Gonzales, V)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

JAMES JACK, JR.,

6

Plaintiff

7
8
9

CASE NO. 1:17-CV-0520 AWI SAB
ORDER CORRECTING DOC. NO. 61
NUNC PRO TUNC

v.
STANISLAUS COUNTY DEPUTY
SHERIFF ERIC PEARSON,

(Doc. No. 61)

Defendant

10

On January 14, 2020, the Court’s order on Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was

11

12 docketed. See Doc. No. 61. However, it has come to the Court’s attention that there are
13 typographical errors with respect to the title this order. Specifically, the title of order appears as
14 “Order On Defendants’ Third Motion To Dismiss” and then references “(Doc. No. 33)”. See id.
15 However, the body of the order addresses and resolves Defendant’s summary judgment motion.
16 See id. In order to avoid possible confusion, the Court will issue this order to correct Doc. No. 61
17 nunc pro tunc to reflect that it is the “Order On Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment,”
18 which is Doc. No. 53 in the record.
19
20

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

read: “Order On Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment”; and

21
22
23

Document No. 61 on Page 1 at the title is CORRECTED NUNC PRO TUNC to now

2.

Document No. 61 on Page 1 in the title, where “(Doc. No. 33)” is identified, is
CORRECTED NUNC PRO TUNC to read “(Doc. No. 53).”

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26 Dated: January 15, 2020
27
28

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE