From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Burkhart v. Timme

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Jan 24, 2012
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00341-MSK-MEH (D. Colo. Jan. 24, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-00341-MSK-MEH

01-24-2012

DAVID LEE BURKHART, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN RAE TIMME, in her official and personal capacities, CASE MANAGER ARTHUR TRAINOR, in his official and personal capacities, ASSISTANT WARDEN RON WAGER, in his official and personal capacities, CASE MANAGER III SHELLY ORTIZ, in her official and personal capacities, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER I MS. SEGURA, in her official and personal capacities, Defendants.


MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty , United States Magistrate Judge, on January 24, 2012.

Before the Court are Plaintiff's Request for Admission of Documents [filed January 19, 2012; docket #75] and Request for Admission of Documents #2 [filed January 19, 2012; docket #76]. Both motions are denied as premature. Evidence supporting one's position may be submitted at such time as a dispositive motion is pending, or at trial.

In addition, Plaintiff has not complied with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(a)(1)(D) and D.C. Colo. LCivR 5.1G. Rule 5(a)(1)(D) requires that a written motion filed with the Court must be served on every party. Local Rule 5.1G requires, in pertinent part, that "[e]ach paper, other than one filed ex parte, shall be accompanied by a certificate of service indicating the date it was served, the name and address of the person to whom it was sent, and the manner of service." Plaintiff's first request for admission of documents [docket #75] contains no certificate of service, while Plaintiff's second request [docket #76] contains a certificate of service indicating that the motion was mailed to the Clerk of the Court. Plaintiff is obligated to provide service to all parties; simply mailing a document to the Court does not meet this requirement.


Summaries of

Burkhart v. Timme

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Jan 24, 2012
Civil Action No. 11-cv-00341-MSK-MEH (D. Colo. Jan. 24, 2012)
Case details for

Burkhart v. Timme

Case Details

Full title:DAVID LEE BURKHART, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN RAE TIMME, in her official and…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Jan 24, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 11-cv-00341-MSK-MEH (D. Colo. Jan. 24, 2012)