Opinion
Civil Action No. 06-cv-01976-MSK-BNB.
July 17, 2008
ORDER
This matter is before me on a handwritten paper filed by the plaintiff on January 14, 2008 [Doc. #44] (the "Paper"). On the same day, the plaintiff also filed both a type-written [Doc. #45] and a hand-written [Doc. #43] response to the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
In her Paper, the plaintiff requests "the right to submit her rough draft for Plaintiff's Response to Defendats [sic] Motion for Summary Judgment because plaintiff is unable to have the original response redone correctly in time for the defendant to respond to it." She further states, "Typing myself and the person that did this for me was unable to read my writing correctly. I've noticed the Civil Action No. is also incorrect it reads 06-cv-01076-MSK-BNB."
I construe the Paper as a request to acknowledge the correct civil action number on the plaintiff's typewritten response to the defendant's summary judgment motion [Doc. #45]. This request is granted. To the extent any other relief is sought, the requested relief is unintelligible and is denied. Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the request contained in the Paper is GRANTED to the extent the plaintiff requests that the Court acknowledge the correct civil action number on the plaintiff's typewritten response to the defendant's summary judgment motion.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any additional relief sought by the Paper is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiff's hand-written [Doc. #43] response to the defendant's summary judgment motion is STRICKEN as redundant.