Fogle et al v. Elliott

Filing 48

MINUTE ORDER denying and STRIKING 46 Plaintiff's (sic) Motion for Summary Judgment, by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/4/2012. (mehcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03253-CMA-MEH
DARLENE GAYNEL FOGLE, and
RONALD JENNINGS FOGLE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ARCHER THOMAS ELLIOTT, JR., sued in his individual capacity,
Defendant.

MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 4, 2012.
Plaintiff’s (sic) Motion for Summary Judgment [filed May 3, 2012; docket #46] is denied
without prejudice and stricken for failure to comply with Judge Arguello’s Practice Standards.
Judge Arguello’s Special Instructions Concerning Motions for Summary Judgment provides in part:
All motions for summary judgment must contain a “Statement of Undisputed
Material Facts.” This Statement shall set forth in simple, declarative sentences,
which are separately numbered and paragraphed, each material fact which the
movant believes is not in dispute and which supports movant’s claim that movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Each separately numbered and paragraphed
fact must be accompanied by a specific reference to material in the record which
establishes that fact.
CMA Civ. Prac. Stds. § III.G.4 (emphasis added). Although Plaintiffs’ motion contains separately
numbered and paragraphed facts, the vast majority of Plaintiffs’ facts are not accompanied by
citations to the record. In the absence of such citations, neither the Court nor opposing counsel can
confirm the veracity of Plaintiffs’ assertions.
Although the Court declines to reach the merits of the present motion, Plaintiffs may re-file
the motion in compliance with Judge Arguello’s Practice Standards, as well as all federal and local
court rules.