Matelic v. Mendoza
Filing
64
ORDER EXTENDING SERVICE OF SUMMONS FOR AMENDED COMPLAINT - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
JOHN MATELIC,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-13523
Plaintiff,
DISTRICT JUDGE AVERN COHN
v.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE R. STEVEN WHALEN
BENNY MENDOZA,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
ORDER
This is an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff John Matelic initially
filed this lawsuit pro se, naming as a Defendant Detroit Police Officer Benny Mendoza. I
previously granted in part and denied in part his motion to amend his complaint,
permitting him to add Melvindale Police Officer David Taft [Doc. #55]. However,
Officer Taft has not yet been served with the amended complaint. On November 7, 2016,
attorney Wright Blake entered an appearance on behalf of Mr. Matelic, and on November
15, 2016, I held a status conference with Plaintiff, his attorney, Defendant Mendoza’s
attorney.1
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff David Matelic, through counsel, will
1
I originally set this date for a settlement conference. However, given the
procedural posture of the case, and the fact that Officer Taft has not been served and was
not present, settlement discussions did not go forward.
-1-
file an amended complaint, consistent with my Order Granting in Part and Denying in
Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint [Doc. #55], on or before
NOVEMBER 29, 2016.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m), the time for
service of the summons and amended complaint is extended to JANUARY 6, 2017.
s/R. Steven Whalen
HON. R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DATED: November 19, 2016
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record on
November 19, 2016, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.
s/Carolyn M. Ciesla
Case Manager to the
Honorable R. Steven Whalen
-2-
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?