Opinion
3:11-cv-00701-RCJ-WGC
02-06-2013
STEVEN KINFORD, Plaintiff, v. BANNISTER, et al., Defendants.
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTES OF THE COURT
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEPUTY CLERK: JENNIFER COTTER REPORTER: NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
On February 4, 2013, the court received plaintiff's "Motion for Issuance of Summons and Order for Service" as to "Defendant James Pincock." (Doc. # 89). Plaintiff's motion erroneously states "this court has previously allowed Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint wherein Dr. James Pincock was added as a defendant." (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff is mistaken. In this Court's order of December 18, 2012 (Doc. # 80), the court concluded Plaintiff's amended complaint did not state a viable medical malpractice claim against Dr. Pincock but that issue would be addressed in a subsequent report and recommendation on the subject. (Doc. # 80 at 8; fn. 76.) Additionally, while the court concluded Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint appeared to set forth a colorable claim of deliberate indifference, no final ruling was made by this court on the proposed amended complaint. Instead the court stated a report and recommendation would be issued addressing Plaintiff's motion to amend after the parties completed further briefing. (Doc. # 80 at 12.)
The parties were permitted to have until January 14, 2013, "to submit additional memoranda on the subject." (Id. at 2.) However, four days after that deadline, and before this court issued a report and recommendation on Plaintiff's motion to amend, the parties submitted a stipulation for dismissal with prejudice (Doc. # 86). On January 25, 2013, Chief Judge Robert C. Jones entered an Order dismissing the case with prejudice (Doc. # 88).
Accordingly, Dr. Pincock was never added as a party to "this action," but even if he were, Plaintiff's agreement to dismiss "the Civil Rights Complaint in the above-captioned matter" with prejudice (Doc. # 86) would effectively foreclose Plaintiff from pursuing any action against Dr. Pincock herein.
Therefore, this case is closed and Plaintiff's motion (Doc #89) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK
By: ____________________________
Deputy Clerk