Andrews v. Geithner et al

Filing 48

MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 19 Plaintiff's Request for Summary Judgment Against Roxy Huber; denying without prejudice 33 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment Against Timothy Geithner, Douglas Shulman, Officer in Charge of Collections, Fresno, CA, Gary Quick, Roseanne M. Miller, Lisa K. Jones, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 12/30/2011.(wjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01366-MSK-KLM
WAYNE ANDREWS,
Plaintiff,
v.
TIMOTHY GEITHNER,
DOUGLAS SHULMAN,
OFFICER IN CHARGE OF COLLECTIONS,
GARY QUICK,
ROSEANNE M. MILLER,
LISA K. JONES, and
ROXY HUBER, in her individual capacity,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Request for Summary Judgment
Against Roxy Huber [Docket No. 19; Filed August 17, 2011] and Plaintiff’s “Motion for
Summary Judgment Against Timothy Geithner, Douglas Shulman, Officer in Charge
of Collections, Fresno, CA, Gary Quick, Roseanne M. Miller, Lisa K. Jones” [Docket
No. 33; Filed October 26, 2011].
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Request for Summary Judgment Against
Roxy Huber [#19] is DENIED AS MOOT. Liberally construing Plaintiff’s Request as the
Court must, the Court concludes that this Motion actually seeks the entry of default and
default judgment against Defendant Huber. Defendant Huber received a copy of the
Complaint on September 13, 2011 [#27], and timely filed a Motion to Dismiss in response
to Plaintiff’s Complaint on November 2, 2011 [#34]. Thus, the entry of default against
Defendant Huber is unwarranted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Summary Judgment . . .” [#33]
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff fails to support the factual allegations stated
in the Motion with admissible evidence as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The Court
notes that the dispositive motions deadline is set as July 15, 2012.
1

Also pending before the Court are Defendants Geithner, Jones, Miller, Officer,
Quick, and Shulman’s Motion to Dismiss [#9] and Defendant Huber’s Motion to Dismiss
[#34]. The two Motions to Dismiss are ripe for review, and the Court will issue a written
recommendation in due course.
Dated: December 30, 2011

2