Griffith v. Clements et al

Filing 91

ORDER Granting Service by United States Marshal by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 2/12/13. (dkals, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland Civil Action No. 11-cv-03078-CMA-BNB DARLENE GRIFFITH, Plaintiff, v. CARMEN A MEYER, N.P., PAULA FRANTZ, chief medical officer, LOUIS CABILING, M.D., JUDY BRIZNDINE, H.S.A., DIANE TORRES, N.P., THOMAS L. PULK, M.D., HOPE C. BEATTE, PHD, STEVEN GALEGOS, P.A. SUSAN TIONA, M.D., ROY HAVENS, P.A., ERICA WILSON, pharmacist, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ ORDER GRANTING SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL ______________________________________________________________________________ The plaintiff filed her Amended Prisoner Complaint on February 27, 2012 [Doc. #6]. Subsequently, I permitted the plaintiff file a Second Amended Complaint [Doc. #71]. The Second Amended Complaint names as additional defendants Thomas Pulk, Hope Beatte, Steven Gallegos, Susan Tiona, Roy Havens, and Erica Wilson. IT IS ORDERED: (1) The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the Second Amended Complaint, summons, order granting leave to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง1915 and all other orders on defendants Thomas Pulk, Hope Beatte, Steven Gallegos, Susan Tiona, Roy Havens, and Erica Wilson. If appropriate, the Marshal shall first attempt to obtain a waiver of service of these documents pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d). All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States. (2) Defendants Thomas Pulk, Hope Beatte, Steven Gallegos, Susan Tiona, Roy Havens, and Erica Wilson or counsel for the defendants shall respond to the Second Amended Complaint as provided for in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure after service of process on the defendants. Dated February 12, 2013. BY THE COURT: s/ Boyd N. Boland United States Magistrate Judge 2

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?