From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bynum v. Milyard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Mar 5, 2012
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02916-WYD (D. Colo. Mar. 5, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 10-cv-02916-WYD

03-05-2012

CECIL BYNUM, Applicant, v. KEVIN MILYARD, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF COLORADO, Respondents.


Chief Judge Wiley Y. Daniel


ORDER

The matter before me is the "Applicant's Reply to Respondent's [sic] Response to Motion Requesting Clarification of Court Order," Doc. No. 53. In the Reply, Applicant asks permission to reply to Respondents' February 8, 2012 Response to Motion, Doc. No. 46. The request is denied. As nothing precludes me from ruling on a motion at any time after it is filed, see D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.I.C., I ruled on Applicant's Motion Requesting Clarification on February 17, 2012. Even if I consider Applicant's Reply, nothing supports a reversal of my findings in the February 17 Order that denied Applicant's third motion to reconsider the April 29, 2011 Order. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that Applicant's request, Doc. No. 53, for permission to reply to Respondents' Response is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

___________________________

Wiley Y. Daniel

Chief United States District Judge


Summaries of

Bynum v. Milyard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Mar 5, 2012
Civil Action No. 10-cv-02916-WYD (D. Colo. Mar. 5, 2012)
Case details for

Bynum v. Milyard

Case Details

Full title:CECIL BYNUM, Applicant, v. KEVIN MILYARD, and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Mar 5, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 10-cv-02916-WYD (D. Colo. Mar. 5, 2012)