Blair v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services et al

Filing 69

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff is not permitted to proceed against Robertus. The Clerk of the court is no longer directed to deliver the documents in Plaintiffs Motion for Summons 41 to the Marshals for service of process.Ordered by Chief Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(PCV, )

N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA STEVEN R. BLAIR, Plaintiff, v. NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 8:07CV307

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own Motion. On December 7, 2009, the court granted Plaintiff's Motion for Summons on Kimberly Robertus ("Robertus"). (Filing No. 67.) The court granted this Motion because Plaintiff had previously been given leave to substitute Robertus as a Defendant in this matter. (Filing Nos. 29 and 30.) However, it is now apparent that Plaintiff failed to name Robertus as a defendant in the caption of his Amended Complaint. (Filing No. 33.) Because Plaintiff failed to name Robertus as a defendant, Plaintiff is not permitted to proceed against Robertus. In order to correct the record, the Clerk of the court is no longer directed to deliver the documents in filing no. 41 to the Marshals for service of process. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff is not permitted to proceed against Robertus. 2. The Clerk of the court is no longer directed to deliver the documents in Plaintiff's Motion for Summons (filing no. 41) to the Marshals for service of process. December 15, 2009. BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon Chief United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or W e b sites. The U.S. District Court for the District o f Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they p r o v i d e on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The c o u r t accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases t o work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.