Opinion
4:18-cv-00822 KGB
01-17-2023
HAPPY STOMPINGBEAR ADC #651503 PLAINTIFF v. HAZEL ROBINSON DEFENDANT
ORDER
KRISTINE G. BAKER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is plaintiff Happy Stompingbear's motion for copies (Dkt. No. 49). Happy Stompingbear states that Happy Stompingbear has not heard anything about this case since Docket No. 44 (Id.). Happy Stompingbear requests a copy of everything that has been filed after Docket No. 44 (Id.). For good cause shown, the motion is granted (Id.). The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Happy Stompingbear copies of Docket Nos. 45-1, 47, and 48 and a copy of the docket sheet.
Also before the Court is Happy Stompingbear's notice of change of address and time extension (Dkt. No. 50). Happy Stompingbear states that Happy Stompingbear has been transferred to a different unit and requests an extension of time to object to “whatever it is that I still have not seen yet.” (Id.). The Court dismissed Happy Stompingbear's claims against Hazel Robinson in an Opinion and Order dated March 29, 2022, and the Court entered a Judgment the same day. The Court has not entered an Order that requires a response from Happy Stompingbear. Accordingly, the Court denies as moot Happy Stompingbear's motion for extension of time (Id.).
Finally, before the Court is Happy Stompingbear's motion for copies and reconsideration and address change (Dkt. No. 51). Happy Stompingbear again states that he is missing Docket Nos. 45-48 and that somewhere this case was closed (Id.). As set forth above, the Court grants Happy Stompingbear's motion for copies. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send Happy Stompingbear copies of Docket Nos. 45-1, 47, and 48 and a copy of the docket sheet. Additionally, Happy Stompingbear's motion for address change is granted. The Clerk of the Court has updated Happy Stompingbear's address with the Court. Happy Stompingbear asserts that the “magistrate made a recommendation,” that Happy Stompingbear did not receive a copy of the recommendation, and that Happy Stompingbear did not have an opportunity to “object before the judge ma[de] a ruling” on the recommendation (Id.). Happy Stompingbear asserts that he is asking the Court for due process (Id.). As the docket sheet indicates, the Court granted defendant Hazel Robinson's motion for summary judgment without a recommendation from United States Magistrate Judge Patricia S. Harris (Dkt. No. 45). The Court did not rule on Happy Stompingbear's motion for summary judgment until after Happy Stompingbear had an opportunity to respond to the motion and present material facts as set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (see Dkt. Nos. 43; 44; 45). The Court denies Happy Stompingbear's motion for reconsideration. For these reasons, the Court grants, in part, and denies, in part, Happy Stompingbear's motion for copies and reconsideration and address change (Dkt. No. 51).
So ordered.