Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-cv-01625-MSK-MEH
09-27-2011
MICHAEL BRODSKY, Plaintiff, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, a municipal corporation, WILLIAM A. LOVINGIER, Ex Officio Sheriff, Denver County, D/S DIGGINS, Deputy Sheriff, Denver County, v. CONNORS, Deputy Sheriff, Denver County, G. McCAIN, Deputy Sheriff, Denver County, D/S AUSTIN, Deputy Sheriff, Denver County, D/S BURKE, Deputy Sheriff, Denver County, D/S PETRONELLI, Deputy Sheriff, Denver County, D/S JOHN DOE, Deputy Sheriff, Denver County, DENVER HEALTH AND HOSPITAL SYSTEMS, a private corporation, CARMEN K., an individual employee of Denver Health, F. BAUER, an individual employee of Denver Health, JOHN DOE III, an individual employee of Denver Health, DON DOE, an individual employee of Denver Health, JACK DOE, an individual employee of Denver Health, SUSAN ROE, an individual employee of Denver Health, PAM ROE, an individual employee of Denver Health, KEINA ROE, an individual employee of Denver Health, RENEE ROE, an individual employee of Denver Health, JANET ROE, an individual employee of Denver Health, (individually and in their official capacity), Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty , United States Magistrate Judge, on September 27, 2011.
Before the Court is Plaintiff's "Supplement to Plaintiff's Motion for Modification of the Scheduling Order" [filed September 20, 2011; docket #1581. The Court construes Plaintiff's Supplement as a second Motion for Modification of the Scheduling Order. Plaintiff's second Motion is denied. Pursuant to this Court's June 17, 2011 order [docket #121], Plaintiff's first motion to modify the scheduling order [docket #118] was denied without prejudice pending a recommendation from this Court on Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint [docket # 114]. This Court issued a recommendation on August 10, 2011 [docket #145] noting that it did not find good cause to extend the presently scheduled deadlines. Plaintiff's second Motion provides no additional support for his request beyond what the Court considered in its recommendation. Again, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to show good cause to amend the scheduling order.