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, )
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?