Clark v. Roy et al

Filing 292

ORDER denying 289 Plaintiff's Objection to the Court's order of 01/11/17, which this Court construes as a motion for reconsideration (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Susan Richard Nelson on 01/23/17. (MJC) (cc: Clark) Modified on 1/23/2017 (AKL).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Civil No. 15-2778 (SRN/HB)

Courtney Bernard Clark,
Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

Commissioner Tom Roy, Nannette
Larson, Dr. Schmult properly known as
Dr. Derek J. Schmidt, Centurion of
Minnesota, Dr. Stephen Craane, Kathy
Reid, David Reishus, and Katherine
Powers,
Defendants.

Courtney Bernard Clark, Pro Se, Inmate Number 177753, MCF–Moose Lake, 1000 Lake
Shore Drive, Moose Lake, Minnesota 55767
Timothy S. Christensen, Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, 445 Minnesota St., Suite
900, St. Paul, MN 55101, for Defendants Tom Roy, Nannette Larson, Kathy Reid, David
Reishus, and Katherine Powers
Charles A. Gross, Geraghty, O’Loughlin & Kenney, PA, Alliance Bank Center, Suite
1100, 55 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, for Defendant Dr. Schmult
properly known as Dr. Derek J. Schmidt
Anthony J. Novak and Mark A. Solheim, Larson King, LLP, 30 East Seventh Street, Suite
2800, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, for Defendants Centurion of Minnesota and Dr. Stephen
Craane

1

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge
Before the Court is the Objection of Plaintiff Courtney Bernard Clark (“Clark”) [Doc.
No. 289] to this Court’s Order of January 11, 2017 [Doc. No. 288].
Because an objection to an order of a district court judge is procedurally improper, the
Court construes Clark’s objection as a motion for reconsideration. Under the local rules of
this Court, “[e]xcept with the court’s prior permission, a party must not file a motion to
reconsider.” D. Minn. L.R. 7.1(j). Clark did not seek the Court’s leave prior to filing his
motion. However, even considering his motion for reconsideration on the merits, it is denied
for the reasons set forth in the Order of January 11, 2017.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Plaintiff’s Objection [Doc. No. 289] to the Court’s Order of January 11, 2017, which
the Court construes as a motion for reconsideration, is DENIED.

s/Susan Richard Nelson __
SUSAN RICHARD NELSON
United States District Judge

Dated: January 23, 2017

2