GRUBBS v. THE SALVATION ARMY, 13-cv-4017-DDC-TJJ. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. Kansas
Number: infdco20140801g82
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jul. 31, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 31, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TERESA J. JAMES, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff's Motion for Documents (ECF No. 36), in which Plaintiff asks the Court to "grant documents." Upon consideration of the matter, the Court finds that the motion should be denied. In his motion, Plaintiff states that (1) he has "no document of The Salvation Army & Defense lawyer Ms. Rosalee McNamara saying she contact the court and then pursuant to the call contacted the police" as seen i
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TERESA J. JAMES, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff's Motion for Documents (ECF No. 36), in which Plaintiff asks the Court to "grant documents." Upon consideration of the matter, the Court finds that the motion should be denied. In his motion, Plaintiff states that (1) he has "no document of The Salvation Army & Defense lawyer Ms. Rosalee McNamara saying she contact the court and then pursuant to the call contacted the police" as seen in..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
TERESA J. JAMES, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on pro se Plaintiff's Motion for Documents (ECF No. 36), in which Plaintiff asks the Court to "grant documents." Upon consideration of the matter, the Court finds that the motion should be denied.
In his motion, Plaintiff states that (1) he has "no document of The Salvation Army & Defense lawyer Ms. Rosalee McNamara saying she contact the court and then pursuant to the call contacted the police" as seen in an attached exhibit, and (2) he "need[s] the Document that is outline that I gave permission to send my signature to the Judge" as referred to in an attached police report.1
Discovery in this case has closed. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks documents from Defendant, his request is untimely. To the extent that Plaintiff may be asking the Court to produce documents, all documents in this case are available to Plaintiff on CM/ECF. Moreover, the documents that Plaintiff seeks to obtain do not appear to bear any relevance to the issues before the Court in this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Plaintiff's Motion for Documents (ECF No. 36) is DENIED.
FootNotes
1. ECF No. 36 at 1.
Source: Leagle
