Creamer v. Fischer et al

Filing 12

ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3) is granted in part and denied in part in accordance with the December 19, 2014 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5). Plaintiff shall be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis as to the claimed violation of Kansas' "one-bite" rule against Defendant Fischer; Plaintiff's motion is denied as to all other claims against all other defendants. The Clerk shall issue summons to the U S Marshal or Deputy Marshal, who are appointed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(3). Plaintiff is directed to IMMEDIATELY prepare and submit summons to the Clerk for service. Signed by District Judge Julie A. Robinson on 1/27/15.Mailed to pro se party Marjorie A. Creamer by regular mail (kao)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

MARJORIE A. CREAMER,
Plaintiff,
vs.

KATY FISCHER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 14-4107-JAR-TJJ

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Fourteen days having passed,1 and no written objections being filed to the proposed
findings and recommendations filed by United States Magistrate Judge Teresa J. James, and after
a de novo determination upon the record pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court accepts as
its own the recommended decision to grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis as to
the claimed violation of Kansas’ “one-bite” rule against Defendant Fischer and to deny the
motion as to all other claims against all other defendants (Doc. 5).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis
(Doc. 3) is granted in part and denied in part in accordance with the December 19, 2014 Report
and Recommendation (Doc. 5). Plaintiff shall be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis as
to the claimed violation of Kansas’ “one-bite” rule against Defendant Fischer; Plaintiff’s motion
is denied as to all other claims against all other defendants.

1

Plaintiff requested and was granted additional time until January 21, 2015, to respond to the Report and
Recommendation. (Doc. 7). On January 26, 2015, Plaintiff moved for a second extension of time to respond (Doc.
10). This motion was five days after January 21, and thus is out of time. In this untimely filed motion, Plaintiff
claims that she did not receive this Court’s Order granting an extension to January 21, until January 21. This Court
attempted to serve Plaintiff before January 21, but Plaintiff refused receipt of the certified mail. Thus, the court, in a
separate text entry, has denied Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. 10) for a second extension of time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 27, 2015
S/ Julie A. Robinson
JULIE A. ROBINSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2