Filed: Feb. 23, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 23, 2016
Summary: ORDER ROBERT E. BLACKBURN , District Judge . The matter before me is plaintiff's Final Order Request [#145], 1 filed February 22, 2016. The motion has been docketed as a motion to clarify, and I construe it accordingly. By this motion, plaintiff asks whether my Order Overruling Objections to and Adopting Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#124], filed January 14, 2016, which dismissed some, but not all, plaintiff's claims against Lieutenant Shaffer and Captain Palmer, i
Summary: ORDER ROBERT E. BLACKBURN , District Judge . The matter before me is plaintiff's Final Order Request [#145], 1 filed February 22, 2016. The motion has been docketed as a motion to clarify, and I construe it accordingly. By this motion, plaintiff asks whether my Order Overruling Objections to and Adopting Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#124], filed January 14, 2016, which dismissed some, but not all, plaintiff's claims against Lieutenant Shaffer and Captain Palmer, is..
More
ORDER
ROBERT E. BLACKBURN, District Judge.
The matter before me is plaintiff's Final Order Request [#145],1 filed February 22, 2016. The motion has been docketed as a motion to clarify, and I construe it accordingly.
By this motion, plaintiff asks whether my Order Overruling Objections to and Adopting Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [#124], filed January 14, 2016, which dismissed some, but not all, plaintiff's claims against Lieutenant Shaffer and Captain Palmer, is a final, appealable order. To answer this inquiry, however, I would be required to give plaintiff legal advice, which is beyond the bounds of the court's proper function. Hall v. Bellmon, 935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991) ("[W]e do not believe it is the proper function of the district court to assume the role of advocate for the pro se litigant."); Landry v. Davis, 2009 WL 274242 at *4 (D. Kan. Jan. 26, 2009) ("Federal courts may not provide legal advice to a pro se litigant, just as they may not provide legal advice to a party represented by an attorney."). Thus, I may not respond to his query.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff's Final Order Request [#145], filed February 22, 2016, construed as a motion to clarify the effect of my prior order, is denied.
FootNotes
1. "[#145]" is an example of the convention I use to identify the docket number assigned to a specific paper by the court's case management and electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). I use this convention throughout this order.
