Adams v. United States
ORDER reinstating 53 Response to Defendants['] Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment as a Surreply re: 56 Motion Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) by Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer on 3/21/13.(dkals, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-01076-PAB-CBS
OFFICER FOCHEE, and
OFFICER A. ESPINOSA,
Magistrate Judge Craig B. Shaffer
This civil action comes before the court on Mr. Adams’s “Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b)”
(filed March 14, 2013) (Doc. # 56) and his Amendment thereto (filed March 20, 2013) (Doc. # 58). Pursuant
to the Order Referring Case dated September 13, 2012 (Doc. # 15) and the memorandum dated March 15,
2013 (Doc. # 57), this matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge.
Mr. Adams asks the court to reinstate his 18-page submission that was stricken on March 4, 2013.
(See Doc. # 54). While the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado do not provide for the filing of surreplies, see D.C. COLO. LCivR 7.1C., and Mr. Adams has
already submitted his own Motion for Summary Judgment and two Responses to Defendant Espinoza’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (see Docs. # 23, # 50, # 51), the court will grant Mr. Adams’s request and
reinstate his Surreply filed on March 4, 2013 (Doc. # 53). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that “Plaintiff Response to Defendants[‘] Reply in Support of Motion for Summary
Judgment” filed by Mr. Adams on March 4, 2013 (Doc. # 53) is REINSTATED as Mr. Adams’s Surreply to
Defendant Espinoza’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. # 47 (same as Doc. # 35-2)). Briefing on the
pending Motions for Summary Judgment is now CLOSED. The court will not accept and may strike any
further briefs on these Motions.
DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 21st day of March, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/Craig B. Shaffer
United States Magistrate Judge
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?