Winans v. Thomas et al
Filing
70
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb, on 2/15/2013, denying as moot 69 Motion to Strike. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
CORY WINANS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs.
)
)
CCS. THOMAS, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )
3:12-cv-00095-RCJ-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
February 15, 2013
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:
KATIE LYNN OGDEN REPORTER: NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is “Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Respondents Reply to Oppose Various
Motions Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) LR 7-2(d).” (Doc. # 69.) Plaintiff bases his motion on the
“failure of a moving party to file points and authorities in support of their motion to refure (sic) to
Local Rules and Practice and not specifically state the Rule L-R 7-2(d) failure to file Points and
Authorities” and that such “failure . . . shall constitute a concent (sic) of denial of the motion” (id.
at 1).1
While Plaintiff does not specify which document(s) he seeks to have the court strike,
presumably it is Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to amend. Plaintiff concludes his
motion as follows:
“Respondents reply to opposition to not grant leave L-R 15-1 or
F.R.C.P. 15, 17, 19 & 20 to correct defects in his initial complaints
as stated herein should be allowed. * * * Plaintiff ask (sic) the court
to except (sic) his previous supplemental if not allow to send it back
to him to change the heading to Amended Complaint.”
(id. at 11.)
1
The court notes that Plaintiff has been the moving party in 17 of the 18 motions filed in this
case. Further, while the Defendant is the moving party in Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment,
the Defendant has not filed any reply to any motions.
MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:12-cv-00095-RCJ-WGC
Date: February 15, 2013
Page 2
Therefore, it appears that Plaintiff is seeking is to have the court grant his motions to amend
and related filings (Docs. # 58, 59, 60 and 64), which this court has already ruled upon. (See Order,
2/7/13, Doc. # 67.)
Plaintiff’s motion (Doc. # 69) 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?
