Yarberry v. Vilsack

Filing 47

ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Order of 7/27/2011 43 is the order of this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Production of Document 44 is DENIED AS MOOT By Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 7/28/2011.(sah, ) Modified on 7/28/2011 to include the complete text of the order (sah, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
LEWIS T. BABCOCK, JUDGE
Civil Case No. 10-cv-02715-LTB-KLM
JEFFREY L. YARBERRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
TOM J. VILSACK, Secretary, US Department of Agriculture,
Defendant.
________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
________________________________________________________________________

On July 27, 2011, I entered my Order approving the Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge that the Motion to Dismiss by Defendant be granted and the Amended
Complaint dismissed without prejudice. I further ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend
be denied (Doc 43). In that Order, I noted that the Plaintiff had not filed a timely reply to
the response filed by Defendant. I now note that a reply was filed on July 27, 2011 (Doc
45) and thus constitutes substantial compliance with my Order setting filing dates.
Unfortunately, in Plaintiff’s reply, Plaintiff does not address his critical failure to raise before
the Magistrate Judge an argument that he never received a Notice of Right to File a Formal
Complaint and thus waived that question on review by me of the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendations.
I note that Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to Compel Production of Document (Doc
44).
1

I conclude upon a review of Plaintiff’s reply that the Order entered July 27, 2011
(Doc 43) remains correct.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Order of July 27, 2011 (Doc 43) is the order
of this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of
Document (Doc 44) is DENIED AS MOOT.
BY THE COURT:

s/Lewis T. Babcock
Lewis T. Babcock, Judge
DATED: July 28, 2011

2