Allen v. Reynolds et al

Filing 103

MINUTE ORDER granting in part 99 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Objection to Magistrates [sic] Recommendation up to and including May 27, 2011 ; granting in part and denying in part 100 Motion for Order. The Clerk of the Co urt shall mail to the plaintiff a copy of Docket Nos. 54 (Plaintiffs [sic] response to Rule 56 Motion), 55 (Plaintiff Shawn D. Allens Affidavit), 66 (Amended Complaint), and 67 (reply to Plaintiffs Response to Rule 56 Motion (Doc. 54)). The court denies without prejudice plaintiffs request for a copy of Complete Discovery. by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 5/17/2011.(erv, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 09-cv-02605-CMA-MJW
SHAWN D. ALLEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
R. REYNOLDS,
Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe
It is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for a 15 Day Extension to File
Objection to Magistrates [sic] Recommendation (Docket No. 99) is granted in part as
follows. While plaintiff seeks an extension up to and including June 4, 2011, in view of
the Final Trial Preparation Conference that is set on June 16, 2011, at 1:15 p.m.,
plaintiff shall have up to and including May 27, 2011, to file (not just mail) his objections
to the Report and Recommendation issued on April 28, 2011 (Docket No. 97). No
further extension will be granted.
It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion to be Provided Copies of
Dockets # 54, 55, 66 and 67 Plus the Complete Discovery (Docket No. 100) is granted
in part and denied in part. The Clerk of the Court shall mail to the plaintiff a copy of
Docket Nos. 54 (Plaintiffs [sic] response to Rule 56 Motion), 55 (Plaintiff Shawn D.
Allen’s Affidavit), 66 (Amended Complaint), and 67 (reply to Plaintiff’s Response to Rule
56 Motion (Doc. 54)). The court denies without prejudice plaintiff’s request for a copy of
“Complete Discovery.” Plaintiff has not specified what discovery responses he requires.
Given the fact that there is only one claim and one defendant remaining in this case,
and the fact that the plaintiff stated in his Response (Docket No. 54 at 1-2) that his only
claim concerns defendant Reynolds allegedly taking plaintiff’s photos, requiring
defendant to reproduce “Complete Discovery” is not warranted or reasonable.
Date: May 17, 2011