Gray v. Doe et al

Filing 37

ORDER signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 7/31/09. Plaintiff's current request for a correction is moot and the motion is therefore denied. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(tkl) (jrl).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge v. ROBERT HERNANDEZ et al., Defendants. Plaintiff, appearing pro se and in forma pauperis, initiated this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 26, 2008. On July 1, 2009, nunc pro tunc, Plaintiff filed a reply to the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 33.) A discrepancy order issued indicating Plaintiff's reply lacked the required proof of service. (Doc. No. 32.) On July 20, 2009, nunc pro tunc, Plaintiff submitted the instant motion requesting the court enter that proof of service. (Doc. No. 36.) However, the court now notes the discrepancy order was issued in error as Plaintiff's reply was properly accompanied by a proof of service. Therefore, Plaintiff's current request for a correction is moot and the motion is therefore DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: July 31, 2009 GREGORY LEE GRAY, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 08 CV 1147 JM (AJB) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CORRECT AS MOOT Doc. No. 36

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

08cv1147