McKay v. Caruso et al
ORDER (1) Denying as Moot 62 Defendants' Motion to Adjourn Expert Scheduling Order Deadlines Pursuant to Fed. Civ. P. 16(b)(4), and Denying as Moot 63 Defendant Dr. Kilaru's Motion to Strike 61 Plaintiff's Sur-Reply. Signed by District Judge Paul D. Borman. (JOwe)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Case No. 10-cv-11801
Paul D. Borman
United States District Judge
DR. (RAMESH) KILARU, et al.,
Mark A. Randon
United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER (1) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO ADJOURN EXPERT
REPORT SCHEDULING ORDER DEADLINES PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P.
16(b)(4) (Dkt. No. 62), and (2) DENYING AS MOOT DEFENDANT DR. KILARU’S
MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S SUR-REPLY (Dkt. No. 63)
On March 30, 2012, the Court entered an Opinion and Order (1) Adopting the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation, (2) Granting Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment,
(3) Denying as Moot Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, and (4) Dismissing Without Prejudice
Unserved John and Jane Doe Defendants.
Accordingly, because the Court has granted Defendants’ dispositive motions and dismissed
all of Plaintiff’s claims against them, Defendants’ Motion to Adjourn Expert Report Scheduling
Order Deadlines, filed on July 6, 2011, is now moot. Defendant Dr. Kilaru’s Motion to Strike
Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply, filed on July 7, 2011, is likewise moot.
For the reasons stated above, the Court will:
(1) DENY AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion to Adjourn Expert Report Scheduling Order
(2) DENY AS MOOT Defendant Dr. Kilaru’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Sur-Reply.
Dated: March 30, 2012
S/Paul D. Borman
PAUL D. BORMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Christopher McKay, 214086,
Central Michigan Correctional Facility, 320 N. Hubbard, St. Louis, MI 48880 and the attorneys of
record on this date, March 30, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
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?