Richardson v. Path Logic Now
Filing
22
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 5/8/17 ORDERING that the Joint Status Report filed by the parties on April 21, 2017, is referred to the District Court for further action. (Becknal, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
HEATHER RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
No. 2:16-cv-02687 TLN GGH
v.
ORDER
PATH LOGIC NOW, aka
NEOGENOMICS
15
Defendant.
16
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
17
18
Plaintiff commenced this Americans with Disabilities [“ADA”] action filed on February
19
3, 2016 while proceeding in pro se. ECF No. 1. Based upon plaintiff’s pro se status the case was
20
referred to this court pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). On March
21
7, 2017 the court issued an Order directing the parties to act in conformity with Federal Rule of
22
Civil Procedure 26 with regard to meeting and confer and submission of a Joint Status Report to
23
this court.
24
On April 21, 2017 attorney D. Randall Ensminger made an appearance on behalf of
25
plaintiff. ECF No. 20. As a result the status of this case was changed from pro se to reflect
26
attorney representation of plaintiff. That also changed the responsibility for managing this case
27
from this court to that of the District Judge assigned to the matter, Hon. Troy L. Nunley. The
28
undersigned is now involved in this court only pursuant to Eastern District of California Local
1
1
2
Rule 302 (c) (1) and upon referral made by the District Judge as to specific issues that arise.
In light of the foregoing IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Status Report filed by
3
the parties on April 21, 2017, is referred to the District Court for further action.
4
DATED: May 8, 2017
5
6
/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?