Prentice v. Barrett et al

Filing 19

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that 12 the Motion for Clarification is denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr on 4/17/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
REGINA BARRETT et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________ )

13

I.

7
8
9
10
11

ANTHONY PRENTICE,

2:16-cv-01390-APG-GWF
ORDER

DISCUSSION

14

On March 2, 2017, this Court issued a screening order permitting portions of Counts

15

I, II, III, and IV to proceed against Defendant Horsley among others. (ECF No. 9 at 9). On

16

March 30, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for clarification stating that they seek clarification

17

as to which Horsley Plaintiff was referring to in his complaint because Defendants found two

18

individuals with that name in their records. (ECF No. 12 at 2). On April 7, 2017, Plaintiff

19

responded that his intended Defendant Horsley was the individual employed as a correctional

20

officer at Ely State Prison. (ECF No. 17 at 1). On April 14, 2017, Defendants filed a reply

21

seeking an order identifying Defendant Horsley as the individual employed as a correctional

22

officer at Ely State Prison. (ECF No. 18 at 2).
Pursuant to Plaintiff’s clarification, Defendant Horsley is the individual employed as a

23
24

correctional officer at Ely State Prison.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

1
2
3

II.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for clarification (ECF No.

12) is denied as moot.

4
5

DATED: This 17th day of April, 2017.

6
7

_________________________________
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2