From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pierce v. Cross

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Mar 5, 2007
7:05-CV-1477 (TJM/GJD) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2007)

Opinion

7:05-CV-1477 (TJM/GJD).

March 5, 2007

MICHAEL PIERCE, Plaintiff pro se.

NELSON SHEINGOLD, Asst. Attorney General for defendant Cross.

PAUL V. MULLIN, ESQ. for Lewis County Defendants.


ORDER


On February 15, 2007, this court received a document from plaintiff that was filed as a "Motion for Discovery." (Dkt. No. 42). Upon closer review of this document, it appears that there are actually two documents contained in the submission by plaintiff. The first document is entitled "Jurisdiction Motion," and the second motion is the "Discovery." Because these two documents appear to have been filed as one document, the court will order that the documents be filed separately and that the docket sheet be corrected to reflect the filing of two separate documents.

WHEREFORE, it is

ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court shall separate the two documents that have been filed as Dkt. No. 42, and it is further

ORDERED, that the document entitled "Discovery" be filed as Dkt. No. 42, retaining the label of "Discovery Motion," and it is further

ORDERED, that the document entitled "Jurisdiction Motion" shall be filed as Dkt. No. 43 and docketed as a "Jurisdiction Motion."


Summaries of

Pierce v. Cross

United States District Court, N.D. New York
Mar 5, 2007
7:05-CV-1477 (TJM/GJD) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2007)
Case details for

Pierce v. Cross

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL PIERCE v. CHRISTOPHER CROSS, et al

Court:United States District Court, N.D. New York

Date published: Mar 5, 2007

Citations

7:05-CV-1477 (TJM/GJD) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2007)

Citing Cases

Rhoades v. El Paso & S. W. Ry. Co.

The statutes which were held to have such effect in that case do not apply to the practice in the appellate…