Shrader v. Biddinger et al
Filing
184
ORDER. Plaintiffs Written Objections to Federal Judge Blackburns (sic) Order Docket No. 168 175 filed 6/1/2011, are DENIED AS MOOT. By Judge Robert E. Blackburn on 6/7/2011. (sah, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Robert E. Blackburn
Civil Case No. 10-cv-01881-REB–MJW
GREG SHRADER,
Plaintiff,
v.
EARIK BEANN,
WAVE 59 TECHNOLOGIES INT’L INC.,
WILLIAM BRADSTREET STEWART,
INSTITUTE OF COSMOLOGICAL ECONOMICS, and
SACRED SCIENCE INSTITUTE, and
WAVE 59 TECHNOLOGIES INT’L INC. OWNERS AND OFFICERS,
Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S WRITTEN OBJECTIONS
TO FEDERAL JUDGE BLACKBURNS (sic) ORDER DOCKET NO. 168
Blackburn, J.
The matter before me is plaintiff’s Written Objections to Federal Judge
Blackburns (sic) Order Docket No. 168 [#175]1 filed June 1, 2011. I am puzzled by
this filing, which purports to object to an order of this court, but refers by docket number
to the Motion of Defendants Wave 59 Technologies Int’l Inc. and Earik Beann To
Include Wave 59 Technologies Int’l Inc. Owners and Officers in Motion To Dismiss
or, in the Alternative, for Leave To Amend Answer [#168] filed May 24, 2011, which
has been referred to the magistrate judge for consideration. (See Memorandum [#169]
filed May 24, 2011.)
1
“[#175]” is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a
specific paper by the court’s electronic case filing and management system (CM/ECF). I use this
convention throughout this order.
The substance of the motion takes issue with rulings of the court relating to
plaintiff’s motion for entry of default and default judgment against the purported
defendant, Wave59 Technologies Int’l Inc. Owners and Officers. As I have found in
relation to similar recent filings by plaintiff, those objections are moot in light of the
court’s Order Sustaining Objection To Order of The United States Magistrate
Judge [#162] entered May 18, 2011. As ordered therein, the question whether entry of
default should be made against this defendant, which was raised in Plaintiff [sic]
Request to Clerk of Court for Default in Accordance with F.R.C.P. 55 [#154] filed
May 11, 2011, has been referred to the magistrate judge for further determination. The
matter, therefore, is presently at issue and will be ruled on in due course. Thus the
present objections are both duplicative and moot.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff’s Written Objections to Federal
Judge Blackburns (sic) Order Docket No. 168 [#175] filed June 1, 2011, are DENIED
AS MOOT.
Dated June 7, 2011, at Denver, Colorado.
BY THE COURT:
2
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?