Ellsworth v. Balkin et al
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.
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?