Anderson v. Worstell et al

Filing 40

ORDER Denying 38 Motion to Compel Appellants to Order and Pay for Transcript of Hearing, by Judge Richard P. Matsch on 10/5/2011.(rpmcd)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch Civil Action No. 11-cv-00488-RPM MITCHELL ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. B. WORSTELL, (No. 2172) individually and in his capacity as a paid peace officer and as an employee and/or agent of the Colorado Springs Police Department and the City of Colorado Springs; C. CALKINS, (No. 2047) individually and in his capacity as a paid peace officer and as an employee and/or agent of the Colorado Springs Police Department and the City of Colorado Springs; COLORADO SPRINGS POLICE DEPARTMENT, in its capacity as an agent and/or independent contractor of the City of Colorado Springs; THE CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, in its capacity as a governmental entity and as the employer of Officers Worstell and Calkins and the Colorado Springs Police Department; JOHN DOES 1-7, whose names and identities are unknown, individually and in their capacity as governmental officers or employees, peace officers, and/or agents of the Colorado Springs Police Department and/or the City of Colorado Springs; and LISA N. PIEL, Defendants. _____ ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL APPELLANTS TO ORDER AND PAY FOR TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING On August 16, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel appellants to order and pay for transcript for July 14, 2011, hearing pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 10(b)(3). The defendants (appellants) filed their response on August 17, 2011. There was no reply. Because the requested transcript is not necessary and the motion is not timely, it is ORDERED that the motion is denied. Dated: October 5th, 2011 BY THE COURT: s/Richard P. Matsch ________________________________ Richard P. Matsch, Senior District Judge

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?