Radick v. USA et al

Filing 77

MINUTE ORDER denying Plaintiff's 75 Motion to Clarify, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 4/4/11.(lsw, )

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 to Clarify [Docket No. 75; Filed March 24, 2011] (the "Motion"). Plaintiff seeks the Court's assistance in understanding several of the Court's prior orders as well as "insight and guidance" regarding "rules or procedures" for filing an interlocutory appeal. Motion [#75] at 1. Plaintiff also seeks information regarding the status of the United States Marshal's attempt to serve Defendant Ippolito. With respect to Plaintiff's second request, the Court informs Plaintiff that Defendant Ippolito has been served and must answer or otherwise respond to the Amended Complaint [Docket No. 13] on or before May 23, 2011. Process Receipt and Return [Docket No. 74]. With respect to Plaintiff's first request, the Court simply cannot provide legal advice to a party, even if he is proceeding pro se. Moreover, pro se litigants are responsible for prosecuting their case in accordance with the same procedural rules that govern other litigants. Nielson v. Price, 17 F.3d 1276, 1277 (10th Cir. 1994). Accordingly,

-1-

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#75] is DENIED. Because Plaintiff has expressed some confusion over the docket in this case, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to send a copy of the docket sheet to Plaintiff via United States mail. Dated: April 4, 2011

-2-