Radick v. USA et al

Filing 64

MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiffs Motion for Clarification 62 is DENIED. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 2/28/2011.(sah, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 10-cv-02504-DME-KLM THOMAS RADICK, Plaintiff, v. MARK IPPOLITO, Health Services Administrator, FCI Englewood, DR. KRAUSE, Physician, FCI Englewood, MR. GARZA, Physician's Assistant, FCI Englewood, NURSE WAGONER, Nurse, FCI Englewood, MRS. LEYBA, Administrative Hearing Officer, FCI Englewood, MR. WALDO, Case Manager, FCI Englewood, MS. DONSANJ, Unit Manager, FCI Englewood, and MR. WATTS, F.B.O.P. Administrative Remedy Coordinator, Central Office, in his official and individual capacity, Defendants. _____________________________________________________________________ MINUTE ORDER _____________________________________________________________________ ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification [Docket No. 62; Filed February 25, 2011] (the "Motion"). The Motion does not contain any request upon which relief can be granted. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks legal advice or guidance from the Court regarding how to properly file motions or how to prosecute his case, such advice and guidance simply cannot be provided. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any future motion submitted by Plaintiff that is captioned with more than one case number will not be accepted for filing. Plaintiff may not submit a motion to the Clerk of the Court with instructions that it be filed in both this case and Case No. 1:11-cv-00298-BNB. Plaintiff must submit a separate copy of each motion he intends to file in each of his pending cases, with the correct case number indicated on each motion. Dated: February 28, 2011 -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?