Michaud v. Williams,, 2:15-cv-02324-RFB-GWF. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20180201e55
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jan. 30, 2018
Latest Update: Jan. 30, 2018
Summary: ORDER GEORGE FOLEY, JR. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Limited Opposition (ECF No. 34), filed on January 26, 2018. On January 16, 2018, the Court ordered that Plaintiff's reply to Defendants' Limited Opposition was due no later than January 24, 2018. Minute Order (ECF No. 26). Plaintiff did not file a reply on that date. Prior to issuing its order, the Court waited an extra day to see if a reply would be filed. It was not. The
Summary: ORDER GEORGE FOLEY, JR. , Magistrate Judge . This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Limited Opposition (ECF No. 34), filed on January 26, 2018. On January 16, 2018, the Court ordered that Plaintiff's reply to Defendants' Limited Opposition was due no later than January 24, 2018. Minute Order (ECF No. 26). Plaintiff did not file a reply on that date. Prior to issuing its order, the Court waited an extra day to see if a reply would be filed. It was not. The ..
More
ORDER
GEORGE FOLEY, JR., Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Limited Opposition (ECF No. 34), filed on January 26, 2018.
On January 16, 2018, the Court ordered that Plaintiff's reply to Defendants' Limited Opposition was due no later than January 24, 2018. Minute Order (ECF No. 26). Plaintiff did not file a reply on that date. Prior to issuing its order, the Court waited an extra day to see if a reply would be filed. It was not. The Court then entered an order denying Plaintiff's request to have the monies taken from his inmate savings account to pay for the $350 filing fee. This order was based on the fact that Plaintiff had not followed the proper procedures as set forth in Administrative Regulation 258.01(1)(D)(4). See Order (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff's response does not address that issue and merely states that he still wishes to pay the court filing fee with the funds contained in his account. Plaintiff's response does not alter the Court's prior ruling. Plaintiff is again advised to follow the proper procedure to use the funds maintained in his inmate account.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
