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).

Download PDF
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

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?