Kinford v. Bannister et al
Filing
90
ORDER DENYING as moot P's 89 Motion for issuance of summons. Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb on 2/6/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
STEVEN KINFORD,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
BANNISTER, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
3:11-cv-00701-RCJ-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
February 6, 2013
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:
JENNIFER COTTER
REPORTER: NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
On February 4, 2013, the court received plaintiff’s “Motion for Issuance of Summons and
Order for Service” as to “Defendant James Pincock.” (Doc. # 89). Plaintiff’s motion erroneously
states “this court has previously allowed Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint wherein
Dr. James Pincock was added as a defendant.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff is mistaken. In this Court’s order
of December 18, 2012 (Doc. # 80), the court concluded Plaintiff’s amended complaint did not state
a viable medical malpractice claim against Dr. Pincock but that issue would be addressed in a
subsequent report and recommendation on the subject. (Doc. # 80 at 8; fn. 76.) Additionally, while
the court concluded Plaintiff’s proposed amended complaint appeared to set forth a colorable claim
of deliberate indifference, no final ruling was made by this court on the proposed amended
complaint. Instead the court stated a report and recommendation would be issued addressing
Plaintiff’s motion to amend after the parties completed further briefing. (Doc. # 80 at 12.)
The parties were permitted to have until January 14, 2013, “to submit additional memoranda
on the subject.” (Id. at 2.) However, four days after that deadline, and before this court issued a
report and recommendation on Plaintiff’s motion to amend, the parties submitted a stipulation for
dismissal with prejudice (Doc. # 86). On January 25, 2013, Chief Judge Robert C. Jones entered an
Order dismissing the case with prejudice (Doc. # 88).
///
MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:11-cv-00701-RCJ-WGC
Date: February 6, 2013
Page 2
Accordingly, Dr. Pincock was never added as a party to “this action,” but even if he were,
Plaintiff’s agreement to dismiss “the Civil Rights Complaint in the above-captioned matter” with
prejudice (Doc. # 86) would effectively foreclose Plaintiff from pursuing any action against
Dr. Pincock herein.
Therefore, this case is closed and Plaintiff’s motion (Doc #89) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By:
/s/
Deputy Clerk
]]>
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?
