Plaintiff v. State of North Carolina et al
Filing
63
ORDER Defts Marianne E. Redmond and Sandra Layton's 53 "Motion for clarification..." is GRANTED to extent the Verified Amended Complaint is now the operative pleading before the Court and Pltf shall have until 8/20/2015 to serve the Verified Amended Complaint on Defts; Pltf's 57 Response to Motion for Clarification, Motion for Order Vacating Alleged Service of Process, inter alia", and 58 "Motion to Agree to Extension of Time to Respond and Motion to Withdraw Service of Process on Defts Layton and Redmond, as to the Original Complaint is DENIED AS MOOT; Pltf's 59 Motion for Extension of Time for Service of Process is GRANTED, and Pltf shall have up to and including 8/20/2015 to serve Defts with the Verified Amended Complaint; and Pltf's 62 "Motion to Stay Proceedings" is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge David S. Cayer on 7/14/15. (ejb) Modified on 7/14/2015 to correct typos (ejb).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-00044-MR-DSC
TODD W. SHORT,
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, et. al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendants Marianne E. Redmond and Sandra
Layton’s “Motion for Clarification…” (document #53), pro se Plaintiff’s “Response to Motion for
Clarification, Motion for Order Vacating Alleged Service of Process, inter alia, and Plaintiff’s
Motion to Agree to Extension of Time to Respond and Motion to Withdraw Service of Process on
Defendants Layton and Redmond, as to the Original Complaint” (documents #57 and #58),
“Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Process on Defendants” (document #59) and
Plaintiff’s “Motion to Stay Proceedings” (document #62).
Having conferred with District Judge Martin Reidinger’s chambers, the Court finds that
Plaintiff has failed to file his Second Amended Complaint within the time allowed by the Court.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s “Verified Amended Complaint” (document #21) filed on April 22, 2015 is
the operative pleading in this case. Pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Court will allow Plaintiff 120 days from April 22, 2015 to serve Defendants with the Verified
Amended Complaint. The Court warns Plaintiff that any Defendants who are not properly served
by the extended deadline of August 20, 2015 will be subject to dismissal pursuant to Rule 4(m).
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendants Marianne E. Redmond and Sandra Layton’s “Motion for Clarification…”
(document #53) is GRANTED to the extent that the Verified Amended Complaint is
now the operative pleading before the Court and Plaintiff shall have until August 20,
2015 to serve the Verified Amended Complaint on Defendants.
2. Plaintiff’s “Response to Motion for Clarification, Motion for Order Vacating Alleged
Service of Process, inter alia, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Agree to Extension of Time to
Respond and Motion to Withdraw Service of Process on Defendants Layton and
Redmond, as to the Original Complaint” (documents #57 and #58), is DENIED AS
MOOT.
3. “Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Process on Defendants” (document
#59) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have up to and including August 20, 2015 to serve
Defendants with the Verified Amended Complaint.
4. Plaintiff’s “Motion to Stay Proceedings” (document #62) is DENIED.
5. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to pro se Plaintiff; to defense counsel;
and to the Honorable Martin Reidinger.
SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 14, 2015
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?