Rainey v. Boyd
MINUTE ORDER. Plaintiff's 21 "unopposed" Motion that Grievance #C-CF1112-8485 be Admitted into Evidence to be Used in Complaint and Plaintiff's 22 "unopposed" Motion Request [sic] to Submit are denied as premature. By Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 5/1/12.(mnfsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-00564-CMA-MEH
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on May 1, 2012.
Plaintiff’s “unopposed”1 Motion that Grievance #C-CF1112-8485 be Admitted into Evidence
to be Used in Complaint [filed April 27, 2012; docket #21] and Plaintiff’s “unopposed” Motion
Request [sic] to Submit [[filed April 27, 2012; docket #22] are denied as premature. This case is
at the very early stages of the litigation; Defendant’s answer or other response to the Complaint is
not due until approximately May 14, 2012 in this case. Until such time as a dispute is presented to
the Court (i.e., in the form of a dispositive motion) concerning the information the Plaintiff wishes
to “admit,” any such “evidence” need not be filed with the Court.
The Court notes that the Defendant has not yet made an appearance in this case; thus, it is
unlikely that the Plaintiff has contacted the Defendant directly to confer and obtain her position on
this motion. Nevertheless, the Court reminds the Plaintiff that the requirements of D.C. Colo. LCivR
7.1A do not apply to this case.
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?