Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Joseph Robinson v. Plumas County

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


June 16, 2011

JOSEPH ROBINSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PLUMAS COUNTY, DEFENDANT.

ORDER

The pro se plaintiff has filed two motion requesting that the court rule on defendant's pending motion to dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 31 & 32.) Therein, plaintiff argues that this court should rule on defendant's pending motion to dismiss forthwith. Although hearing dates are referred to in the captions and the body of both motions, neither motion was properly noticed for hearing in compliance with the Local Rules. See Local Rule 230(b). Moreover, the court will issuing findings and recommendations with respect to defendant's pending motion to dismiss in due time. Plaintiff's motions for a ruling are unnecessary. Therefore, plaintiff's May 10, 2011 (Doc. No. 31) and May 12, 2011(Doc. No. 32) motions for ruling are denied. The matters will not appear on the court's June 17, 2011 calendar.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20110616

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.