Watterson et al v. Burgess et al

Filing 100

ORDER granting 99 Motion for Reconsideration re 83 Second Amended Complaint filed by Randolph Alexander Watterson and Jeffrey Randolph Watterson. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 12/17/15. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(mga)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:13-CV-159-FDW-DCK
JEFFREY RANDOLPH WATTERSON, and
RANDOLPH ALEXANDER WATTERSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.

)
)
)
)
)

)

WOODY BURGESS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER

)
)
)
)
)

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiffs “Motion To Reconsider”
(Document No. 99) filed on December 16, 2015. The pending motion has been referred to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and immediate review is
appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion and the record, the undersigned will grant
the motion.
Plaintiffs now request that the undersigned reconsider the “Order” (Document No. 93)
finding that Plaintiff Jeffrey R. Watterson failed to sign the “Second Amended Complaint”
(Document No. 83). After further review of the record and the “Second Amended Complaint”
(Document No. 83), the undersigned agrees that both Plaintiffs, Randolph A. Watterson and
Jeffrey R. Watterson, signed that document. See (Document No. 83, p.38). As such, the Court
will accept the “Second Amended Complaint” as being filed by both Plaintiffs.
CONCLUSION
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiffs “Motion To Reconsider” (Document
No. 99) is GRANTED. The “Second Amended Complaint” (Document No. 83) is deemed to be
filed by both Plaintiffs. The Clerk of Court shall update the docket for this case accordingly.

The Clerk of Court is further directed to send a copy of this Order to Plaintiffs, and the pro
se Defendant at the addresses listed on the docket for the case by certified U.S. Mail, return
receipt requested.

SO ORDERED.
Signed: December 16, 2015

2