Michaels v. AKAL Security, Inc.

Filing 68

ORDER re: Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Clarification of Order, docket #58 62 . The Court agrees with Plaintiff that there is a typographical error in section IV. Analysis: V. Akal Claims. The Courts Order dated 06/24/2010 58 is amended as described. By Judge Zita L. Weinshienk on 08/11/2010.(sah, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior Judge Zita Leeson Weinshienk Civil Action No. 09-cv-01300-ZLW-CBS SUE ANNE MICHAELS, Plaintiff, v. AKAL SECURITY, INC., and ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ The matter before the Court is Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion For Clarification Of Order, Docket #58 (Doc. No. 62). Plaintiff seeks clarification of this Court's Order dated June 24, 2010, granting in part and denying in part Defendant Attorney General's Motion To Dismiss (Doc. No. 51). The Court agrees with Plaintiff that there is a typographical error in section "IV. Analysis: V. Akal Claims." Specifically, the reference to Claim Six in that section was unintentional. That section is modified to read as follows: Although Akal has not filed a motion to dismiss, the Court finds that the reasoning behind dismissing Claim Eight (Retaliation) for the Attorney General applies equally to Plaintiff's claim against Akal. Therefore, the Court will dismiss Claim Eight in its entirety.1

See McKinney v. State of Okla. Dept. Of Human Servs., 925 F.2d 363, 365 (10th Cir. 1991) (sua sponte dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) appropriate if amendment of complaint would be futile).

1

The rest of the Order is correct as issued.2 Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Court's Order dated June 24, 2010 (Doc. No. 58) is amended as described above. DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 11 day of August, 2010. BY THE COURT:

_____________________________________ ZITA LEESON WEINSHIENK, Senior Judge United States District Court

The Court did not intend to dismiss Claim Seven against Defendant Akal, as that Claim was not referenced or briefed by any party in the motion to dismiss.

2

2