Scott v. Cunningham

Filing 50

ORDER RE-NOTING the 27 MOTION for Leave to Depose Non-Parties, the 31 MOTION for Default and the 39 MOTION to Amend filed by Richard Roy Scott, TO: 11/4/11. Plaintiff filed motions after the stay, if Plaintiff wishes any dismissed motion to be considered, he must re-file the motion, serve counsel for Defendant, and note the motion for hearing on the Court's calendar. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Strombom.(CMG; cc to Plaintiff)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 5 6 7 8 RICHARD ROY SCOTT, No. C11-5509 BHS/KLS Plaintiff, v. ORDER RE-NOTING MOTIONS 9 KELLY CUNNINGHAM, 10 11 12 Defendant. This matter was stayed pending decision by Chief Judge Marsha J. Pechman of Plaintiff’s motion to recuse the undersigned magistrate judge. ECF No. 45. Pursuant to the Order staying 13 this matter, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Depose Non-Parties (ECF No. 27), Motion for 14 15 Default (ECF No. 31), and Motion to Add Defendant (ECF No. 39) were removed from the 16 Court’s calendar. Chief Judge Pechman has denied Plaintiff’s motion for recusal. ECF No. 49. 17 The stayed motions will now be re-noted on the Court’s calendar to allow the parties to respond 18 and reply in a timely fashion. 19 20 As Plaintiff was previously advised, motions he filed while this matter was stayed would not be considered and would be dismissed. See ECF No. 45 at 3. Plaintiff filed motions after the 21 22 23 stay. If Plaintiff wishes any dismissed motion to be considered, he must re-file the motion, serve counsel for Defendant, and note the motion for hearing on the Court’s calendar. 24 25 26 ORDER - 1 1 2 It is ORDERED that the Clerk shall re-note Plaintiff’s motions (ECF Nos. 27, 31, and 39) for November 4, 2011. 3 4 DATED this 19th day of October, 2011. 5 A 6 Karen L. Strombom United States Magistrate Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER - 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?