Nagim v. Napolitano et al

Filing 20

MINUTE ORDER denying 18 Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 61 Harmless Error and/or Plaintiff [sic] Request From the Court in Respect to Rule 61 Harmless Error, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 6/21/10.(ebs, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 10-cv-00329-PAB-KLM RONALD J. NAGIM, Plaintiff, v. JANET NAPOLITANO, in her official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and ERIC HOLDER, JR., in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ MINUTE ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's "Motion for Rule 61 Harmless Error" and/or "Plaintiff [sic] Request From the Court in Respect to Rule 61 Harmless Error" [Docket No. 18; Filed June 18, 2010] (the "Motion"). As a preliminary matter, despite prior defects in service, counsel for Defendants has entered his appearance [Docket No. 14]. As such, all motions filed by Plaintiff must comply with D.COLO.LCivR 7.1A. and certify that he conferred with Defendants by indicating whether they are opposed to the relief requested. The Motion does not contain a Local Rule 7.1A. certification and is subject to denial on this basis alone. Further, the Motion, which appears to raise issues related to prior service deficiencies, is unclear. Whether Plaintiff has, in fact, properly served Defendants is not before the Court at this time. To the extent that service deficiencies remain, Defendants are free to raise those prior to, or in conjunction with, their response to Plaintiff's Complaint due on August 16, 2010. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. Dated: June 21, 2010

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?