Armelin v. Donahoe
MINUTE ORDER denying without prejudice 67 Plaintiff's Motion to Deny and/or Dismiss Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Motion in Response for a More Definite Statement Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) and to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 06/21/2012.(wjcsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00048-MSK-KLM
DALE P. ARMELIN,
PATRICK R. DONAHUE, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service,
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Deny and/or Dismiss
Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion in Response for a More Definite
Statement Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) and to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) [Docket No. 67; Filed June 20, 2012] (the “Motion”). As an initial
matter, the Motion does not comply with D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1A, which provides as follows:
The Court will not consider any motion, other than a motion under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12 or 56, unless counsel for the moving party or a pro se party, before
filing the motion, has conferred or made reasonable, good faith efforts to
confer with opposing counsel or a pro se party to resolve the disputed matter.
The moving party shall state in the motion, or in a certificate attached to the
motion, the specific efforts to comply with this rule.
The Motion is subject to denial on this basis alone. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion [#67] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Dated: June 21, 2012
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?