Ankeney v. Zavaras et al

Filing 123

MINUTE ORDER denying 99 Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing/Conference; denying 101 Plaintiff's Motion for Order; granting 117 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply up to and including April 25, 2011 ; granting 118 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply up to and including April 25, 2011 ; granting 119 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply up to and including April 25, 2011 by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 4/12/2011.(erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 09-cv-02085-CMA-MJW
RANDAL ANKENEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
DR. TIM CREANY,
NURSE PRACTITIONER KLENKE, and
NURSE PRACTITIONER HIBBS,
Defendant.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Extension of Time to File Reply
in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 117) is granted,
and plaintiff shall have up to and including April 25, 2011, to file a reply in support of his
Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 86). It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support
of Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (Docket No. 118) is granted, and plaintiff shall have up to
and including April 25, 2011, to file his reply in support of his Motion to Amend (Docket
No. 87). It is further
ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Extension of Time to File Reply in Support
of Plaintiff’s Motion for Costs of Depositions (Docket No. 119) is granted, and plaintiff
shall have up to and including April 25, 2011, to file his reply in support of his Motion for
Costs (Docket No. 88). It is further
ORDERED that plaintiff’s Motion for Hearing to Establish Facts Pursuant to Rule
56(d)(2) (Docket No. 99) is denied. The court does not find it necessary to
“interrogate” the attorneys in this case in order to determine what material facts are not
genuinely at issue in this case. In addition, plaintiff seeks this hearing to narrow the
issues, but the court has already narrowed the issues in this case. (See Docket No. 41
at 11; Judge Arguello’s Order of May 19, 2010). It is further
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Physical Examination (Docket No. 101)
is denied for the reasons stated in the defendants’ response (Docket No. 114). It is
further

Page 2 of 2
ORDERED that plaintiff’s Second Motion for Court Appointed Expert (Docket No.
105) is denied, substantially for the reasons stated in the defendants’ response (Docket
No. 116). While medical issues are involved in this case, this case is not overly
complex, only one issue remains in this case, and the court finds that a court-appointed
expert is not necessary.
Date: April 12, 2011