Bloodworth v. Timmerman-Cooper et al

Filing 48

ORDER denying 45 Motion to Strike ; granting 47 Motion for Extension of Time to make substantive response to defendants motion to dismiss 39 . Responses due by 12/30/2011 Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 12/08/11. (rew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
RONALD BLOODWORTH,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:10-CV-1122
Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge King

DEBORA A. TIMMERMAN-COOPER,
et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss “plaintiff’s third amended
complaint.”

Motion to Dismiss, Doc. No. 39.

specifically to Doc. No. 34.

Defendants’ motion refers

In response, plaintiff filed a motion to

strike defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, arguing that he has not filed a
third amended complaint.

Motion to Strike, Doc. No. 45.

Plaintiff’s history of filing illegible documents has resulted in
some confusion in the record of this case.

Nevertheless, it is clear

that defendants’ Motion to Dismiss addresses the complaint appearing at
Doc. No. 34.
represents

Moreover, even plaintiff acknowledges that that filing

the

operative

complaint

in

this

action.

Under

these

circumstances, plaintiff’s Motion to Strike, Doc. No. 45, is DENIED.
Plaintiff has also asked for an extension of time in which to make
substantive response to defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Motion Requesting
Extension of Time, Doc. No. 47.

That motion is GRANTED.

Plaintiff may

have until December 30, 2011 to make substantive response to the Motion
to Dismiss.
December 8, 2011

s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge