Handy v. Diggins et al

Filing 203

MINUTE ORDER. Defendants Joint Motion for Leave to File Instanter 201 is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to file Defendant's Motion and Brief for Summary Judgment, by Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya on 7/17/12.(sgrim)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya
Civil Action No. 10–cv–02022–WYD–KMT

WYATT T. HANDY JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHIEF DIGGINS, individual & official capacity,
MAJOR V. CONNORS, individual & official capacity,
CHAPLAIN SCOTT, individual & official capacity,
MR. BURRIS, individual & official capacity, and
PANEL OF ISLAMIC CLERICS, individual & official capacity
Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER
ORDER ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KATHLEEN M. TAFOYA
“Defendants’ Joint1 Motion for Leave to File Instanter” (Doc. No. 201, filed July 16, 2012) is
GRANTED. The court acknowledges the conflict between the court’s April 10, 2012 Minute
Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Court to Set Scheduling Conference and the electronic
docket entry for that Minute Order. (See Doc. No. 168.) More specifically, while the actual
body of that Minute Order featured the correct dispositive motions deadline of July 5, 2012, the
docket entry for that Minute Order featured on CM/ECF erroneously indicated that the
dispositive motions deadline was July 15, 2012. Accordingly, at most, Defendants exhibited
excusable neglect in failing to comply with the July 5, 2012 dispositive motions deadline. The
Clerk of Court is directed to file Defendant’s Motion and Brief for Summary Judgment (Doc.
No. 201-1).
Dated: July 17, 2012

1

Defendants’ Motion is not truly a “joint” motion, as that term typically suggests that the
plaintiff and the defendants move together for the same relief. Rather, Defendants employ the
term joint to suggest that all defendants seek the same relief.