Ortiz v. Enhanced Recovery Company
Filing
90
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 6/28/19 DENYING 89 and 88 Requests for hearing.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
RENE ORTIZ,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:17-cv-0607 KJM DB PS
v.
ORDER
ENHANCED RECOVERY COMPANY,
15
Defendant.
16
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was, therefore, referred to the
17
18
undersigned in accordance with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). On June 17,
19
2019, the undersigned took under submission several pending motions and vacated the hearing of
20
those motions. (ECF No. 85.) On June 24, 2019, and June 26, 2019, plaintiff filed requests
21
asking that those motions be placed back on for hearing. (ECF Nos. 88 & 89.)
At this time, the undersigned finds that no further briefing or hearing is necessary for
22
23
resolving the motions and that they may be decided without hearing pursuant to Local Rule
24
230(g). If, after further evaluation, the undersigned finds that further briefing and/or a hearing
25
would be helpful, the undersigned will order such.
26
////
27
////
28
////
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. Plaintiff’s June 24, 2019 request for a hearing (ECF No. 88) is denied; and
3
2. Plaintiff’s June 26, 2019 request for a hearing (ECF No. 89) is denied.
4
DATED: June 28, 2019
5
/s/ DEBORAH BARNES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
DLB:6
DB/orders/orders.pro se/ortiz0607.subm.ord
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?