Filed: Mar. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER GENE E.K. PRATTER , District Judge . AND NOW, this 7th day of March, 2019, upon consideration of the Court's June 4, 2018 Order placing this case in suspense (Doc. No. 7), Plaintiff Mark McKay's "Motion for Rule 4" (Doc. No. 20), the defendants' responses (Doc. Nos. 23, 24, and 28), Defendant Ted Krimmel's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 27), Mr. McKay's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 29), the defendants' responses in opposition (Doc. Nos. 30 and 32), Mr. McKay's "Motion: Opposit
Summary: ORDER GENE E.K. PRATTER , District Judge . AND NOW, this 7th day of March, 2019, upon consideration of the Court's June 4, 2018 Order placing this case in suspense (Doc. No. 7), Plaintiff Mark McKay's "Motion for Rule 4" (Doc. No. 20), the defendants' responses (Doc. Nos. 23, 24, and 28), Defendant Ted Krimmel's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 27), Mr. McKay's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 29), the defendants' responses in opposition (Doc. Nos. 30 and 32), Mr. McKay's "Motion: Oppositi..
More
ORDER
GENE E.K. PRATTER, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 7th day of March, 2019, upon consideration of the Court's June 4, 2018 Order placing this case in suspense (Doc. No. 7), Plaintiff Mark McKay's "Motion for Rule 4" (Doc. No. 20), the defendants' responses (Doc. Nos. 23, 24, and 28), Defendant Ted Krimmel's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 27), Mr. McKay's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 29), the defendants' responses in opposition (Doc. Nos. 30 and 32), Mr. McKay's "Motion: Opposition" (Doc. No. 31), Mr. McKay's Response in Opposition to Chief Krimmel's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 33), Mr. McKay's "Motion to Object to Defendants Request for Dismissal of a Jury Trial" (Doc. No. 46), Mr. McKay's "Motion to Object to Defendants Request for Dismissal of a Jury Trial" (Doc. No. 49), and Mr. McKay's "Motion to Withdraw from Suspense, & to Proceed Pro Se" (Doc. No 50), it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Mr. McKay's "Motion for Rule 4" (Doc. No. 20) is DENIED;
2. Mr. McKay's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 29) is DENIED;
3. Chief Krimmel's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 27) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set out in the accompanying Memorandum;
4. Mr. McKay's "Motion: Opposition" (Doc. No. 31), "Motion to Object to Defendants Request for Dismissal of a Jury Trial" (Doc. No. 46), and "Motion to Object to Defendants Request for Dismissal of a Jury Trial" (Doc. No. 49)—which are all construed as responses in opposition to Chief Krimmel's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 27)—are DEEMED MOOT;
5. Mr. McKay's "Motion to Withdraw from Suspense, & to Proceed Pro Se" (Doc. No 50) is GRANTED;
6. The Clerk of the Court shall REMOVE this case from SUSPENSE STATUS;
7. The Clerk of the Court shall REMOVE this case from the Prisoner Civil Rights Panel; and
8. The defendants shall respond to Mr. McKay's complaint by March 29, 2019.
