Filed: May 28, 2015
Latest Update: May 28, 2015
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , Senior District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Pending are multiple dismissal motions in which certain Defendants seek dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint, arguing it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. ( See ECF Nos. 84, 85, 88, 93, 96, 101.) On May 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed an "Appeal to the U.S. Eastern District Judge," in which Plaintiff references multiple motions he filed, which wer
Summary: ORDER GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr. , Senior District Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Pending are multiple dismissal motions in which certain Defendants seek dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint, arguing it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. ( See ECF Nos. 84, 85, 88, 93, 96, 101.) On May 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed an "Appeal to the U.S. Eastern District Judge," in which Plaintiff references multiple motions he filed, which were..
More
ORDER
GARLAND E. BURRELL, Jr., Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Pending are multiple dismissal motions in which certain Defendants seek dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint, arguing it is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. (See ECF Nos. 84, 85, 88, 93, 96, 101.)
On May 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed an "Appeal to the U.S. Eastern District Judge," in which Plaintiff references multiple motions he filed, which were denied in the Magistrate Judge's Orders dated March 2, 2015, and April 16, 2016, and indicates his desire to obtain a ruling on the referenced dismissal motions. (Pl.'s Appeal, ECF No. 112.) To the extent Plaintiff seeks in his "appeal" reconsideration under Local Rule 303(c) of the Magistrate Judge's March 2, 2015 and April 16, 2016 Orders, Plaintiff has not shown that any portion of those orders is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Therefore, reconsideration of those orders is DENIED.
Further, to the extent Plaintiff also seeks in his "appeal" a ruling on the referenced dismissal motions by a specified date, that request is DENIED.
