From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Baker v. Buckner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
May 4, 2012
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01374-REB-KLM (D. Colo. May. 4, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01374-REB-KLM

05-04-2012

LEROY W. BAKER, Plaintiff, v. BUCKNER, Officer: S.G.T., and GRANT, Officer. Defendants.


MINUTE ORDER

ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's "Status Motion & Notice of Appeal . . ." [Docket No. 26; Filed May 3, 2012] (the "Motion"). On instruction by the District Judge's Chambers, the Motion was filed as a Motion for Default Judgment. Construing the Motion liberally as it must, the Court believes that Plaintiff is seeking entry of default judgment in his favor, because he submitted his Response in objection to the pending Motion to Dismiss [#22] in December, and he has not received notice that the Motion to Dismiss has been resolved.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Motion is granted to the extent that the Court informs Plaintiff that the Motion to Dismiss [#22] remains pending, Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss was received and filed on the docket [#25], and the Court will issue a written Recommendation regarding the Motion to Dismiss in due course. Default judgment is not appropriate here, because Defendants have responded to the Complaint with an Answer [#23] and the pending Motion to Dismiss [#22]. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. Accordingly, the Motion is denied in all other respects.


Summaries of

Baker v. Buckner

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
May 4, 2012
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01374-REB-KLM (D. Colo. May. 4, 2012)
Case details for

Baker v. Buckner

Case Details

Full title:LEROY W. BAKER, Plaintiff, v. BUCKNER, Officer: S.G.T., and GRANT…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: May 4, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 11-cv-01374-REB-KLM (D. Colo. May. 4, 2012)