Walker v. University of Colorado - Board of Regents

Filing 41

MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 36 Plaintiff's Request [Motion] to Clarify Rule. In addition, the Court warns the Plaintiff that he may not file, ex parte, letters or documents with the Court unless such letters or documents are attache d to a request for relief (motion) that complies with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A (and other applicable local rules), or to a response or reply to a motion. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 1/6/2010. (mehcd) Modified on 1/7/2010 to add text to clarify this document is a minute order (ebs, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 09-cv-01690-PAB-MEH GEORGE W. WALKER, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOARD OF REGENTS, Defendant. MINUTE ORDER Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on January 6, 2010. The Plaintiff's Request [Motion] to Clarify Rule [filed January 4, 2010; docket #36] is denied without prejudice. The Court fails to understand the Plaintiff's request for relief; the Plaintiff states that Defendant filed a "disclosure statement" with the Court; however, the only documents filed by the Defendant in this case have been a proposed Scheduling Order on December 29, 2009, and a motion for a one-day extension of time on January 4, 2010. Therefore, the Plaintiff may re-file his motion explaining the meaning of "disclosure statement." In addition, the Court warns the Plaintiff that he may not file, ex parte, letters or documents with the Court unless such letters or documents are attached to a request for relief (motion) that complies with D.C. Colo. LCivR 7.1A (and other applicable local rules), or to a response or reply to a motion.