Filed: Jan. 21, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 21, 2015
Summary: ORDER R. STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Clara Vargas, a pro se litigant in this civil case, has filed the following motions: -Motion to Take Deposition [Doc. #81] -Motion to Strike Pleadings [Doc. #84] -Motion for Discovery and Disclosure [Doc. #87] -Department of Defense Motion to Grant Claim [Doc. #89] ( ) -Motion to Reach Judgment under Rule 54 [Doc.#95] 1 In terms of any motions for depositions or other discovery [Doc. #81 and #87], Ms. Vargas does not contend that the
Summary: ORDER R. STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Clara Vargas, a pro se litigant in this civil case, has filed the following motions: -Motion to Take Deposition [Doc. #81] -Motion to Strike Pleadings [Doc. #84] -Motion for Discovery and Disclosure [Doc. #87] -Department of Defense Motion to Grant Claim [Doc. #89] ( ) -Motion to Reach Judgment under Rule 54 [Doc.#95] 1 In terms of any motions for depositions or other discovery [Doc. #81 and #87], Ms. Vargas does not contend that the ..
More
ORDER
R. STEVEN WHALEN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Clara Vargas, a pro se litigant in this civil case, has filed the following motions:
-Motion to Take Deposition [Doc. #81]
-Motion to Strike Pleadings [Doc. #84]
-Motion for Discovery and Disclosure [Doc. #87]
-Department of Defense Motion to Grant Claim [Doc. #89] (?)
-Motion to Reach Judgment under Rule 54 [Doc.#95]1
In terms of any motions for depositions or other discovery [Doc. #81 and #87], Ms. Vargas does not contend that the Defendant has failed to comply with any discovery requests, or that she has even made any such requests as provided for under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Her motion to strike pleadings [Doc. #84] does not indicate what pleadings she wants stricken. Her motion to reach judgment [Doc. #95] discusses adding claims and parties, but does not indicate which claims and parties she wishes to add. And to the extent that motion asks for entry of judgment, she has offered absolutely no argument in support of that relief.2 In any event, I have filed a Report and Recommendation that recommends dismissal of the City of Novi, the only Defendant that has been served.
As to Motion #89, involving the Department of Defense and access to Fort Bliss, I have no idea what Ms. Vargas is talking about, but it has nothing to do with this case.
So, Plaintiffs motions [#81, #84, #87, #89, and #95] are all DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
