The Regents of the Univ. of New Mexico v. Knight

Full title: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff and…

Court: United States District Court, D. New Mexico

Date published: Mar 11, 2002

CIV No. 99-577 JC/WWD (D.N.M. Mar. 11, 2002)

Opinion

CIV No. 99-577 JC/WWD.

March 11, 2002

Paul Adams, Esq., Steven Slusher, Esq., Albuquerque, New Mexico, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Galen D. Knight Albuquerque, New Mexico, Terence J. Scallen, Albuquerque, New Mexico, Appearing Pro Se.

ORDER

JOHN EDWARDS CONWAY, Senior United States District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendant Scallen's Motion Under FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(1), for Review by the Court of the Clerk's Order (Doc. 334) Settling Costs Regarding UNM's Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. 316), filed January 18, 2002 (Doc. 335), and Defendant Knight's Motion Under FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(1), for Review by the Court of the Clerk's Order (Doc. 334) Settling Costs Regarding UNM's Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. 316), filed January 23, 2002 (Doc. 338). Having reviewed the motions, memoranda and the relevant authorities, the Court finds Defendants' motions are not well taken and are, therefore, denied.

A. Defendant Scallen:

Although Defendant Scallen acknowledged in his motion's title that it regarded the Clerk's order settling costs, his arguments are almost wholly devoid of any true argument concerning that issue. Moreover, what arguments he attempts are utterly specious and hold no merit. As such, the Court sees no reason to examine Defendant's individual arguments.

B. Defendant Knight:

As Plaintiff states in its Response to Defendant Knight's Motion to Review Clerk's Order Settling Costs (Response), filed January 16, 2002 (Doc. 337), Defendant Knight engages in multiple arguments that are wholly unrelated to the taxing of costs. See id. at 2. Therefore, as Plaintiff also points out in its Response, Defendant Knight's attempted arguments are without merit and thus need no further discussion.

Wherefore,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant Scallen's Motion Under FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(1), for Review by the Court of the Clerk's Order (Doc. 334) Settling Costs Regarding UNM's Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. 316), filed January 18, 2002 (Doc. 335) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Knight's Motion Under FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(1), for Review by the Court of the Clerk's Order (Doc. 334) Settling Costs Regarding UNM's Motion to Tax Costs (Doc. 316), filed January 23, 2002 (Doc. 338), is DENIED.