York v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Filing 187

MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 157 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time and denying as moot 158 Motion for Leave to File Motion. To the extent plaintiff requests an additional extension of time in his "Response to Defendants on Motion for Extension of Time" (Doc. No. 177), the request is denied, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 3/13/09.(ebs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 07-cv-01297-PAB-KLM MALACHI Z. YORK, a/k/a DWIGHT YORK, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, MAUREEN CRUZ, former Associate Warden, JACK FOX, Associate Warden, BRIAN A. BLEDSOE, Warden, L. MCDERMOTT, Health Services Specialist, S. SMITH, SIS Technician, S. NAFZIGER, MD, Clinical Director, C.W . WELCH, Physician Assistant, MICHAEL NALLEY, Regional Director, D. SHIEFELBEIN, Physician's Assistant, J.T. SHARTLE, former Associate Warden, RON WILEY, Warden, HERMAN O. LYLE, MD, Consultant Internist, IVAN NEGRON, MD, Medical Director, RATAEL ROMAN, MD, Clinical Director, RAIEZ, Health Administrator, G. HICKS, Physician Assistant, J.F. CASTILLO, Physician Assistant, RICK STALLKAMP, Pharmacist, LAW RENCE LEYBA, DO, Clinical Director, M. MILLER, Physician Assistant, A. VINYARD, Physician Assistant, Y. FETTERHOFF, Imaging Techniques Specialist, M. SWANN, Practitioner Assistant, each in his/her individual and official capacity, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ MINUTE ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ Order Entered by Judge Philip A. Brimmer

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff's "Forthwith Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition/Objection to the Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge" [Docket No. 157] and plaintiff's "Motion Objecting/Opposing to Recommendation" [Docket No. 158] which I also construe as a request for an extension of time. On February 3, 2009, Plaintiff filed an objection [Docket No. 165] to the magistrate judge's recommendation. Because plaintiff has filed the document for which he seeks the extension of time, his motions for extension of time [Docket Nos. 157 and 158] are DENIED as moot. To the extent plaintiff requests an additional extension of time in his "Response to Defendants on Motion for Extension of Time" [Docket No. 177], the request is DENIED. Dated March 13, 2009.

2