DAVIS v. ZINGG et al
ORDER re 24 Motion for summonses and copy of Court's rules relating to actions under 28 U.S.C.§1983 actions is DENIED; 25 Motion for Extending Time to Service of Summons is DENIED. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES on 10/31/2011. (jws)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CURTIS LEON DAVIS,
Case No: 1:10-cv-95-MP-GRJ
SADIE DARNELL, et al.,
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion For Extending Time To Service
Of Summons (Doc. 25) and a document from Plaintiff requesting the issuance of
summonses and a copy of the Court’s rules relating to actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1983.
(Doc. 24.) Plaintiff, a prisoner presently incarcerated at Avon Park CI, initiated this case
by filing a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and has been granted leave to
proceed as a pauper. (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff is proceeding pursuant to a second amended
complaint, Doc. 23 (hereafter “Complaint”).1
The undersigned recently entered a Report and Recommendation
recommending dismissal of the Complaint. (Doc. 26.) If the Report and
Recommendation is adopted and the Complaint is dismissed, then service of the
Complaint will not be ordered and the issuance of summonses by the Clerk would be
unnecessary. Accordingly, both of Plaintiff’s motions are due to be DENIED. If
Plaintiff styled the pleading as his “First Amended” complaint, but it is in fact his
second amended complaint.
Plaintiff’s Complaint is deemed sufficient to proceed on, then the Court will order the
Clerk to issue the summonses and direct service on its own motion.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1) Plaintiff’s Motion For Extending Time To Service Of Summons (Doc. 25) is
(2) Plaintiff’s request for summonses and a copy of the Court’s rules relating to
actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 actions (Doc. 24) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED this 31st day of October 2011.
s/Gary R. Jones
GARY R. JONES
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?