From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Miller v. Lusk

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Apr 25, 2013
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03365-RBJ-BNB (D. Colo. Apr. 25, 2013)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 11-cv-03365-RBJ-BNB

04-25-2013

DANIEL BRENT MILLER, Plaintiff, v. CORPERAL LUSK, Teller Sheriff, DEPUTY BAST, Teller Sheriff, DEPUTY ODELL, Teller Sheriff, and DEPUTY MARTINEZ, Teller Sheriff, Defendants.


Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland


ORDER

This matter arises on the plaintiff's Motion to Stay Proceedings [Doc. #84, filed 04/19/2013] (the "Motion to Stay"), which is DENIED.

The plaintiff seeks a two week stay of this case because he "is on lockdown quarantine by the department of health . . . due to a flu epidemic at the facility." He states that he does not have access to legal materials and will be unable to reply to the defendants' discovery requests.

The plaintiff does not state definitively whether he has been served with discovery requests by the defendants, nor does he identify any deadline for serving his responses. There are no pending motions which require a response by the plaintiff. To the contrary, the only pending motions have been filed by the plaintiff, including a motion which was filed three days after the Motion to Stay. The plaintiff has failed to provide any justification to stay this case.

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Stay [Doc. # 84] is DENIED.

BY THE COURT:

Boyd N. Boland

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

Miller v. Lusk

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Apr 25, 2013
Civil Action No. 11-cv-03365-RBJ-BNB (D. Colo. Apr. 25, 2013)
Case details for

Miller v. Lusk

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL BRENT MILLER, Plaintiff, v. CORPERAL LUSK, Teller Sheriff, DEPUTY…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Apr 25, 2013

Citations

Civil Action No. 11-cv-03365-RBJ-BNB (D. Colo. Apr. 25, 2013)