Bell v. Avila et al

Filing 81

ORDER Denying 79 Plaintiff's Motion For A More Definite Objection.(Signed by Judge Kenneth M. Hoyt) Parties notified.(gkelner, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
PATRICK WAYNE BELL,
Plaintiff,
VS.
FAUSTO AVILA, et al,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:11-CV-4238

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE OBJECTION
On March 28, 2013, this Court entered summary judgment and dismissed most of the defendants
in this case. On May 1, 2013, plaintiff Patrick Wayne Bell filed a document styled “Plaintiff’s Motion for
a More Definite Objection to Judge Hoyt’s Ruling.” The relief Bell seeks with this motion is unclear, but
the motion states no grounds for any relief.
Bell first contends that he was denied due process because, according to Bell, this Court held an
ex parte conference with the defendants. No such conference ever occurred. Bell points to docket entry
69 as proof of this alleged conference. Docket Entry 69 is the memorandum and order granting the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment. There is also an administrative docket entry accompanying
the memorandum and order which terminates the prevailing defendants from this case. The motion was
decided on the papers, and no hearing or conference ever took place.
The remainder of Bell’s motion asserts objections to the Court’s decision. These are largely
duplicative of argument raised in the summary judgment papers. If Bell believes that this Court erred, he
is free to raise that argument on appeal. His motion, however, states no basis for relief in this Court.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Bell’s Motion for a More Definite Objection to Judge Hoyt’s Ruling
(Doc. # 79) is DENIED.
SIGNED on this 8th day of May, 2013.
___________________________________
Kenneth M. Hoyt
United States District Judge

1/1