Roe v. Parkside Cardiology, LLC., et al

Filing 29

MINUTE ORDER denying as moot 24 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Claims for Relief, and granting 26 Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint by Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty on 8/31/2015.(mdave, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 15-cv-01543-WJM-MEH
ATHENA MISHELLE ROE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHAD SCHOOLEY,
PAUL SHERRY,
ERIK CARLSON,
BRIAN METZ,
PAMELA TAYLOR, and
WILLIAM LUECK,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
MINUTE ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on August 31, 2015.
Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint [filed August 27, 2015;
docket #26] is granted despite Plaintiff not filing the proposed amended pleading.1 In light of
Plaintiff’s upcoming filing of an amended complaint, Defendants’ Motion for Extension of Time
to Respond to Claims for Relief [filed August 27, 2015; docket #24] is denied as moot.

1

The Court notes that to determine whether it is in the interest of justice to grant an
amendment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), the Court must review the proposed amended
pleading.