Robinson v. Plumas County
Filing
37
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/16/11 DENYING 31 and 32 Motions for Ruling. The matters will not appear on the court's 6/17/11 calendar. (Meuleman, A)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
JOSEPH ROBINSON,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
No. CIV S-10-2948 JAM DAD PS
v.
PLUMAS COUNTY,
ORDER
14
Defendant.
15
/
16
The pro se plaintiff has filed two motion requesting that the court rule on
17
defendant’s pending motion to dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 31 & 32.) Therein, plaintiff argues that this
18
court should rule on defendant’s pending motion to dismiss forthwith. Although hearing dates
19
are referred to in the captions and the body of both motions, neither motion was properly noticed
20
for hearing in compliance with the Local Rules. See Local Rule 230(b). Moreover, the court
21
will issuing findings and recommendations with respect to defendant’s pending motion to
22
dismiss in due time. Plaintiff’s motions for a ruling are unnecessary. Therefore, plaintiff’s May
23
/////
24
/////
25
/////
26
/////
1
10, 2011 (Doc. No. 31) and May 12, 2011(Doc. No. 32) motions for ruling are denied. The
2
matters will not appear on the court’s June 17, 2011 calendar.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 16, 2011.
5
6
7
8
DAD:6
robinson2948.ord.den.motruling
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?
