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)

Download PDF
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

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?