Watkins v. Donnelly

Filing 120

ORDER denying 40 Motion for Default Judgment; ADOPTING Report and Recommendations re 54 Report and Recommendation.; ADOPTING Report and Recommendations re 56 Report and Recommendation.; MOOT 103 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis; M OOT 106 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response; MOOT 107 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; MOOT 112 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis ; DENYING 83 Plaintiff's Objections; DENYING 70 Plaintiff's Objections; DENYING 101 Plaintiff's Objections; DENYING 109 Objections. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron 7/11/11

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA ERIC WATKINS, Plaintiff, vs. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DONNELLY, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CIV-09-1381-C ORDER A number of objections and requests in this case have been filed. The Court has taken no action for a period of months due to the pending interlocutory appeals. The Tenth Circuit has dismissed the appeals as premature, and the Court rules on the following matters at issue: 1. Reports and Recommendations filed March 9 and March 14 (Dkt Nos. 54 & 56), have not been objected to and are therefore adopted. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment against seven unidentified staff members and against Defendant Donald Reich are therefore denied. 2. Plaintiff’s objections (Dkt. No. 83) to the Order (Dkt. No. 70) vacating the entry of default against Defendant Donnelly are, for reasons explained in earlier Orders, without merit. The objections are overruled. 3. Plaintiff’s objection (Dkt. No. 101) to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay is mooted by the Tenth Circuit’s dismissal of his appeal and the objection is overruled. 4. Plaintiff’s applications to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt Nos. 103, 107 & 112) appear to relate to the appeal pending at that time and they are now moot. 5. Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Dkt. No. 106) is mooted by the filing of his objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order on May 23, 2011, which will be considered to be timely. 6. In a Motion to Stay (Dkt. No. 108), Plaintiff seeks to have his response to Defendant Donnelly’s Motion to Dismiss stayed pending the Court’s ruling on various other motions. The stay has, in effect, been granted by the Court’s delayed ruling. Plaintiff shall have until August 1, 2011, within which to respond to the Motion to Dismiss. 7. In his objections (Dkt. No. 109) to the Magistrate Judge’s Order permitting Defendant Donnelly to answer out of time, Plaintiff argues no circumstances of fact or law which support the relief he seeks. His objections are therefore overruled. IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of July, 2011. 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?