Gambina v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 143

MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 104 Motion to Compel Response to Plaintiff's Amended Interrogatory No. 8 and to Compel Entry Pursuant to Plaintiff's Notice of Inspection USP Florence ADMAX. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 12/10/2012. (klyon, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 10-cv-02376-MSK-KLM RALPH GAMBINA, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, sued in its official capacity; Defendant. _____________________________________________________________________ MINUTE ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Response to Plaintiff’s Amended Interrogatory No. 8 and to Compel Entry Pursuant to Plaintiff’s Notice of Inspection USP Florence ADMAX [Docket No. 104; Filed July 10, 2012] (the “Motion to Compel”). On December 3, 2012, the Court asked Plaintiff, who now proceeds in this matter as a pro se litigant: (1) whether he renewed his request to compel a response to Amended Interrogatory No. 8; (2) whether he renewed his request to compel inspection of USP Florence ADMAX; and (3) if he renewed his request to compel inspection of USP Florence ADMAX, the name, address, and telephone number of the person who would take the requested photographs of the prison facilities, should the Motion be granted. See Minute Order [#141]. On December 5, 2012, Plaintiff sent a Response to the Court’s Minute Order, in which he stated that he no longer seeks a response to Amended Interrogatory No. 8 and that he no longer seeks to compel inspection of USP Florence ADMAX. Response [#142]. Accordingly, based on Plaintiff’s representations, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#104] is DENIED as moot. Dated: December 10, 2012 -1-

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?