HIERRO v MCDONALD, et al
ORDER denying 102 Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint Against County of Orange and denying 103 Motion Barring Defendnat Cherry from Filing a Second Motion for Summary Judgment; signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE GARY R JONES on 9/14/10. (tss)
-GRJ HIERRO v MCDONALD, et al
Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PANAMA CITY DIVISION MANUEL HIERRO, Plaintiff, v. DR DANIEL CHERRY, et al, Defendants. _____________________________/ ORDER This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff's motions: Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint Against County of Orange (Doc. 102); and Motion to Bar Defendant Cherry from Filing a Second Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 103). Both motions (docs. 102 and 103) are DENIED. As the Court explained previously (see doc. 61), Orange County should not be named as a defendant since Plaintiff has asserted no claims against it. Naming it as a party simply to engage in discovery is not an appropriate means to obtain information. Also, as the Court has ruled previously (doc. 85), over Plaintiff's objections (doc. 83), the defendants will be granted leave to file a second motion for summary judgment. It will not reconsider this decision. DONE AND ORDERED this 14th day of September 2010. CASE NO. 5:09-cv-00068-RS-GRJ
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?