Rivero v. McDaniel et al

Filing 5

ORDER granting 3 Defendants' Motion for Screening and granting 4 Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Signed by Judge Robert A. McQuaid Jr.. (HJ, )

Download PDF
Rivero v. McDaniel et al Doc. 5 Case 3:06-cv-00132-LRH-RAM Document 5 Filed 03/14/2006 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA DAMIEN RIVERO, Plaintiff, vs. WARDEN E.K. McDANIEL, et al., Defendants / Case No. 3:06-CV-0132-LRH-RAM MINUTES OF THE COURT DATE: March 14, 2006 PRESENT: THE HONORABLE: ROBERT A. McQUAID, JR.,UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEPUTY CLERK: LORI M. STORY REPORTER: NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS: XXX NONE APPEARING NONE APPEARING Defendants have removed this civil action from the Seventh Judicial District Court of Nevada in White Pine County. Removal is based on this court's jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331(docket #2). Defendants now move for screening of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A (docket #3) and for an extension of time to answer or otherwise defend the complaint (docket #4). The motions shall be granted. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for screening (docket #3) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for extension of time to answer (docket #4) is granted. No answer or other response shall be due from defendants until such time as the Court has screened the complaint and ordered a response. LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK By: /s/ Lori M. Story Deputy Clerk Dockets.Justia.com

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?