Ratcliff v. Race

Full title: DAVID MARC RATCLIFF, Plaintiff, v. MARK E. RACE, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, D. Kansas

Date published: Nov 18, 2005

Civil Action No. 05-3133-CM (D. Kan. Nov. 18, 2005)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 05-3133-CM.

November 18, 2005

ORDER

CARLOS MURGUIA, District Judge

This case is before the court on pro se plaintiff David Marc Ratcliff's Motion for Judgment (Doc. 31). Plaintiff asks the court to enter judgment in his favor because he claims that defendants failed to answer his complaint in a timely manner. Defendants were not untimely in responding to plaintiff's complaint. The court granted them until September 23, 2005 to respond to plaintiff's complaint, and on that date, defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff also avers that "Defendant Mark E. Race should be held in contempt for [having] changed his address [without] properly notifying the court or plaintiff of this action." The court will not hold Mr. Race in contempt. Mr. Race had no obligation to notify plaintiff of his change of address before an answer was due in this case, and plaintiff should now communicate with Mr. Race through his attorney.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion for Judgment (Doc. 31) is denied.