Birman v. Berkebile et al

Filing 63

MINUTE ORDER; Plaintiff's 45 Motion in Response (Traverse) toDefendants Opposition to Summary Judgment and Renewed Motion for SummaryJudgment is DENIED but accepted as Plaintiffs Reply in support of his Cross Motion for Summary Judgment 42 . An order on the Cross Motion for Summary Judgment will issue in due course. Plaintiff's 46 Renewed Motion to Amend His Civil Rights Complaint, and/or Reply to Defendants Opposition Response Thereto is DENIED but accepted as Plaintiffs Reply in support of his Motion Amend Civil Rights Complaint [#41]. An order on the Motion to Amend Civil Rights Complaint will issue in due course, by Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 6/19/15.(morti, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00376-KLM
MICHAEL Y. BIRMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
D. BERKEBILE, Warden,
MR. KIANG, ADX Pharmacist “LT” Commander, and
MR. CORDOVA, Health Service Supervisor,
Defendants.
_____________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion in Response (Traverse) to
Defendant’s Opposition to Summary Judgment and Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment [#45] and on Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Amend His Civil Rights
Complaint, and/or Reply to Defendants Opposition Response Thereto [#46].
First, the Court addresses Plaintiff’s Renewed Motion to Amend His Civil Rights
Complaint, and/or Reply to Defendants Opposition Response Thereto [#46]. As noted by
Plaintiff, who proceeds in this matter as pro se litigant, this filing may also be construed as
a Reply to Defendant’s Response [#43] to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Civil Rights
Complaint [#41]. Having examined the document, the Court finds that it is better construed
as a Reply than a Motion, and therefore the Court construes this filing as a Reply to
Defendant’s Response [#43] to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Civil Rights Complaint [#41].
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this Motion [#46] is DENIED but accepted as
Plaintiff’s Reply in support of his Motion Amend Civil Rights Complaint [#41]. An order on
the Motion to Amend Civil Rights Complaint will issue in due course.
Second, the Court addresses Plaintiff’s Motion in Response (Traverse) to
Defendant’s Opposition to Summary Judgment and Renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment [#45]. As noted by Plaintiff, this filing may also be construed as Plaintiff’s Reply
to Defendant’s Response [#44] to Plaintiff’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment [#42],
-1-

and the Court finds that it is bettered construed as such. Accordingly,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Motion [#45] is DENIED but accepted as
Plaintiff’s Reply in support of his Cross Motion for Summary Judgment [#42]. An order on
the Cross Motion for Summary Judgment will issue in due course.
Dated June 19, 2015.

-2-