Opinion
3:14-cv-00661-RCJ-WGC
03-27-2018
JEREMY JOSEPH STROHMEYER, Plaintiff, v. K. BELANGER et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff sued Defendants in this Court in pro se for various alleged civil rights violations. Plaintiff has sent a letter to the Court, which the Clerk has entered into the docket as an objection to the Magistrate Judge's recent minute order explaining that under Civil Rule 7, documents requesting action by the Court must be titled motions and that letters to the Court will be disregarded. The Court interprets the present letter not as an objection to the Magistrate Judge's recent minute order but a motion for immediate screening or transfer to another judge. Essentially, Plaintiff is growing impatient with the progress of the case. Plaintiff notes that he has filed the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), a motion to screen it, and four additional motions, but that the Court has not yet screened the SAC or ruled on the four motions. The Court will screen the SAC and address the motions in due course. The Court will not prioritize the present case above others and will not transfer it to another judge.
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Screening or Transfer (ECF No. 41) and the Motion for Screening (ECF No. 39) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 27 DAY OF MARCH, 2018.
/s/_________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge