Ellsworth v. Balkin et al

Filing 51

ORDER re: 48 the plaintiffs Response to Defendant Answer and Rule 12(B) (6) [Doc #48] is moot. The plaintiff shall file a response to the defendants Amended Motion to Dismiss Pursuant ot Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) [Doc. #46] on or before May 14, 2010. The response shall not include a reply to defendant Frantzs Answer, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/19/10. (bnbcd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland Civil Action No. 09-cv-02265-WYD-BNB JOSEPH A. ELLSWORTH, Plaintiff, v. PAT MONTEZ, CHARLES OLIN, A. ZAVARAS, CATHY HOLST, MARSHALL GRIFFITH, PAULA FRANKTZ, and BURL MCCULLAR, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER ______________________________________________________________________________ This matter arises on the plaintiff's Response to Defendants Answer and Rule 12(B)(6) [Doc #48, filed 03/08/2010] (the "Response"). The Response is moot. On February 8, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss [Doc. #39]. In addition, defendant Frantz1 filed an Answer [Doc. #40]. I ordered the plaintiff to file a response to the motion to dismiss on or before March 8, 2010 [Doc. #42]. On March 8, 2010, the plaintiff filed a response to both the Answer and the motion to dismiss [Doc. #48]. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that there shall be a complaint and answer. Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(a). Further pleadings are prohibited except that the court may order a reply to an

The plaintiff has incorrectly spelled this defendant's last name as "Franktz." I use the spelling provided by defendant Frantz.

1

answer. Id. The court has not ordered a reply, and my review of the pleadings shows that a reply is not necessary. Therefore, to the extent the plaintiff has filed a reply to defendant Frantz's Answer, the reply is not appropriate. In addition, I permitted the defendants to file an amended motion to dismiss [Doc #45]. The defendants filed their amended motion to dismiss on March 3, 2010 [Doc. #46]. Therefore, the plaintiff's Response is moot. I ordered the plaintiff to respond to the amended motion to dismiss on or before April 8, 2010 [Doc #45]. The plaintiff has not filed a response to the amended motion to dismiss. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the plaintiff's "Response to Defendant Answer and Rule 12(B)(6)" [Doc #48] is moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff shall file a response to the defendants' "Amended Motion to Dismiss Pursuant ot Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)" [Doc. #46] on or before May 14, 2010. The response shall not include a reply to defendant Frantz's Answer. Dated April 19, 2010. BY THE COURT: s/ Boyd N. Boland United States Magistrate Judge

2