Lawson v. Citicorp Trust Bank et al
Filing
33
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 12/1/11 re 32 Request filed by Tracy D. Lawson: Because the proposed findings and recommendations are still pending, there is no present need to revisit plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. (Meuleman, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
TRACY D. LAWSON,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
No. 2:11-cv-01163 KJM KJN PS
v.
CITICORP TRUST BANK, FSB, et al.,
14
Defendants.
RESPONSE TO “REQUEST OF STATUS”
/
15
16
On November 22, 2011, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Petitioner’s Request
17
of Status” (Dkt. No. 32), which appears to seek a status update from the court regarding a motion
18
for leave to amend that plaintiff filed on August 15, 2011 (Dkt. No. 27).1 The court denied
19
plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend her complaint on August 23, 2011. (Minute Order, Aug.
20
23, 2011, Dkt. No. 29.) Noting that proposed findings and recommendations recommending the
21
dismissal of plaintiff’s entire action with prejudice had already been entered at the time plaintiff
22
filed her motion for leave to amend, the court’s order states:
23
In light of the pending findings and recommendations [Docket
No. 25], plaintiff’s motion to amend [Docket No. 27] is DENIED. If any
of plaintiff’s claims remain after resolution of the findings and
24
25
1
26
This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California
Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
1
1
recommendations by the district judge, plaintiff may re-file her motion to
amend.
2
3
(Id.) Because the proposed findings and recommendations are still pending, there is no present
4
need to revisit plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend.
5
DATED: December 1, 2011
6
7
8
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?