Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Duran v. Merline

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN VICINAGE


December 10, 2009

MIGEL DURAN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WARDEN GARY MERLINE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joel Schneider United States Magistrate Judge

[Doc. No. 116]

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's "Motion for Reconsideration" [Doc. No. 116] of different Orders issued by the Court; and the Court having received defendants' responses; and the Court having heard oral argument on December 8, 2009; and for the reasons stated on the record on December 8, 2009,

It is hereby ORDERED this 10th day of December, 2009, that plaintiff's motion is DENIED; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the Court's November 12, 2009 Order denying his Motion to Appoint Pro Bono Counsel [Doc. No. 106] is DENIED; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's request for leave to serve more than 25 interrogatories on each defendant is DENIED; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's request for leave to take depositions is DENIED for the reason that leave of court is not required for the depositions plaintiff requests to take. Plaintiff is required to notice and take the depositions in accordance with the applicable federal and local rules of civil procedure; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's request for subpoenas is DENIED for the reason that plaintiff does not need leave of court to issue the requested subpoenas; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's request for reconsideration of the Court's Orders denying his request for court appointed experts [Doc. No. 101, 102] is DENIED; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's request for photographs of the interior of the Atlantic County Justice Facility is DENIED, except that the County defendants shall produce a photograph(s) of a representative cell where plaintiff was incarcerated; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's request for "more time to get experts" is DENIED for the reason that when plaintiff filed his motion the Court had not set a date for the production of plaintiff's expert reports. The deadline for the service of expert reports will be set forth in a Scheduling Order to be entered.

20091210

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.