Kinford v. Bannister et al

Filing 24

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb, on 2/16/2012. By Deputy Clerk: Jennifer Cotter. plaintiffs Motion to Withdraw 23 is GRANTED and his Motion to Extend Prison Copy Work Limit 12 is deemed withdrawn. Pl aintiff's Motion for Order to Proceed 19 is DENIED as moot. Plaintiff's unresolved Motion for Clerk to Enter Default Judgment 20 will be the subject of the hearing previously scheduled for February 28, 2012, at 1:30 p.m. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
STEVEN KINFORD,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BANNISTER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

3:11-cv-00701-RCJ-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
February 16, 2012

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:

JENNIFER COTTER

REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court are a series of motions filed by plaintiff: Plaintiff’s “Motion to Extend
Copywork Limit” (Doc. #12); “Motion for Order to Proceed” (Doc. #19); “Motion for Clerk to Enter
Default Judgment” (Doc. #20) and “Notice to the Court” (Doc. #23), which the Court interprets as
a Motion to Withdraw.
1. Motion to Extend Copywork Limit (Doc. #12) and
“Notice to the Court” (Motion to Withdraw) (Doc. #23)
On January 10, 2012, plaintiff filed a “Motion to Extend Prison Copy Work Limit” (Doc.
#12). Subsequent thereto, on February 15, 2012, plaintiff filed a “Notice to the Court” (Doc. #23)
wherein plaintiff states he no longer needs the extra copy work extension as he “received some
unexpected money.” Plaintiff’s “Notice” (Doc. #23) is therefore be interpreted as a motion to
withdraw his request to extend prison copy work limit (Doc. #12).
Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw (Doc. #23) is GRANTED and his
Motion to Extend Prison Copy Work Limit (Doc. #12) is deemed withdrawn.
2. Motion for Order to Proceed (Doc. #19)
On February 9, 2012, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Order to Proceed” (Doc. #19) wherein he
correctly notes that the case was stayed for 90 days pending the outcome of mediation, and that the
90 day stay ended on January 25, 2012. Inasmuch as the stay has now been lifted, the case is
proceeding. Therefore, plaintiff’s “Motion for Order to Proceed” (Doc. #19) is DENIED as moot.

MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:11-cv-00701-RCJ-WGC
Date: February 16, 2012
Page 2
3. Motion for Clerk to Enter Default Judgment (Doc. #20)
Plaintiff’s “Motion for Clerk to Enter Default Judgment” (Doc. #20) was also filed on
February 9, 2012. Therein plaintiff seeks entry of default as against defendant Phillip Schlager,
M.D., stating that defendant Schlager was served with a copy of the plaintiff’s complaint on
November 23, 2011. A review of the court’s docket reflects that on November 29, 2011, plaintiff
filed a “Proposed Waiver of Service of Summons” (Doc. #7). The Waiver of Service of Summons
appears to be signed by plaintiff himself, rather than by defendant Schlager. No Affidavit of Service
is on file.
Plaintiff’s unresolved “Motion for Clerk to Enter Default Judgment” (Doc. #20) will be the
subject of the hearing previously scheduled for February 28, 2012, at 1:30 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk