Bormuth v. Jackson, City of et al

Filing 48

ORDER Directing Plaintiff to Limit Ex Parte Communications with Court Staff. Signed by District Judge Robert H. Cleland. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Email of 7/25/12, # 2 Exhibit B Email of 7/28/12, # 3 Exhibit C Email of 7/28/12, # 4 Exhibit D Email of 7/30/12, # 5 Exhibit E Email of 7/30/12, # 6 Exhibit F Email of 7/30/12, # 7 Exhibit G Email of 7/30/12, # 8 Exhibit H Email of 7/30/12, # 9 Exhibit I Email of 7/31/12) (LWag)

To:
Cc:
Bcc:
Subject:
From:
To:
Cc:
Date:
Subject:

peter bormuth <[e-mail]>
lisa wagner <[e-mail]>
forbush <[e-mail]>, john gillooly <[e-mail]>
07/30/2012 02:36 PM
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 8 (b) (6)

Ms. Wagner
If Mr. Gillooly did not file an answer to my amended complaint, i believe Rule 8 (b) (6) which states:
Effect of Failing to Deny. An allegation—other than one relating to the amount of damages—is admitted
if a responsive pleading is required and the allegation is not denied.
Is this correct? An amended complaint requires a responsive pleading.
My allegations must be admitted by the Court by default.
Peter Bormuth