Opinion
Civil Action No. 11-cv-01615-PAB-MEH
02-27-2012
JOSEPH HOLT, Plaintiff, v. JOICE CHRUNK, DR. JOSEPH WERMERS, and DR. KATHY MCBRIDE, Defendants.
MINUTE ORDER
Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on February 27, 2012.
Before the Court is a letter from Plaintiff [filed February 24, 2012; docket #42] which the Court construes as a Motion to Clarify and for a Continuance. In particular, Plaintiff requests clarification as to "why [he] is only suing Joyce Crunk" and "a continuance for at leat (sic) 1 month." (Docket #42.) Plaintiff's Motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows.
"Joyce Crunk" is named in the Amended Complaint as Joice Chrunk. (Docket #13.)
Although the Court will not provide legal advice to any party, the Court will confirm that Defendant Wermers has been served [docket #41] and that the address of Defendant McBride remains unknown [docket #16]. Thus, as the Court reads the Amended Complaint and current docket, Plaintiff's claims against Defendants Wermers and McBride are still pending. (See docket #13.)
With respect to Plaintiff's request for a continuance, Plaintiff has not described with sufficient particularity the matter or deadline for which he seeks a continuance. Because the nature of the requested continuance is unclear, the Court declines to afford any such relief at this time.