Opinion
2:16-cv-01390-APG-GWF
04-17-2017
ANTHONY PRENTICE, Plaintiff, v. REGINA BARRETT et al., Defendants.
ORDER
I. DISCUSSION
On March 2, 2017, this Court issued a screening order permitting portions of Counts I, II, III, and IV to proceed against Defendant Horsley among others. (ECF No. 9 at 9). On March 30, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for clarification stating that they seek clarification as to which Horsley Plaintiff was referring to in his complaint because Defendants found two individuals with that name in their records. (ECF No. 12 at 2). On April 7, 2017, Plaintiff responded that his intended Defendant Horsley was the individual employed as a correctional officer at Ely State Prison. (ECF No. 17 at 1). On April 14, 2017, Defendants filed a reply seeking an order identifying Defendant Horsley as the individual employed as a correctional officer at Ely State Prison. (ECF No. 18 at 2).
Pursuant to Plaintiff's clarification, Defendant Horsley is the individual employed as a correctional officer at Ely State Prison. /// /// /// ///
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the motion for clarification (ECF No. 12) is denied as moot.
DATED: This 17th day of April, 2017.
/s/_________
United States Magistrate Judge