THOMAS v. REAGAN
USDC Cr. No. 84-3552
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WILLIAM THOMAS, et al
Plaintiff Pro Se
versus CA 84-3552
Judge Louis Oberdorfer
UNITED STATES, et al
Defendants
PLAINTIFFS' EXCEPTION UPON FILING OF
RESPONSE TO MAGISTRATE'S MEMORANDUM OPINIONS, REPORTS
& RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF DEFENDANTS CANFIELD AND LINDSEY
On November 14, 1986 U.S Magistrate Arthur Burnett heard
argument on the motions of all defendants for summary judgment. On
November 21, 1986 Thomas requested a copy of the proceeding in that
hearing. On December 15, 1986 the Magistrate issuedMemorandum
Opinions, Reports, and Recommendations on two of those motions. On
December 17, 1986. Thomas made a second request for a transcript of
the November 14, 1986 hearing. On December 29, 1986 plaintiffs
filed a motion for an extention of time in which to file a Response
to the Magistrate's December 15th filings, based in part on the
premise that the transcript was necessary inthe preparation of a
comprehensive Response.
Regretably no indication has been forthcoming from the Court
with regard to this matter.
Plaintiffs are anxious that this matter should proceed as
rapidly as possible. Therefore plaintiffs have filed Responses to
the two Recommendations which the Magistrate has submitted to the
record thus far.
It appears that the Magistrate intends to submit at least a
third, and possibly a fourth Memorandum Opinion, Report &
Recommendation.
Plaintiffs are by no means fully satisfied that their Responses
to the Magistrate's Memorandum Opinions, Reports & Recommendations
On The Motions Of Summary Judgment Of Defendants Canfield, and
Lindsey have not suffered as a result of the fact that they were
deprived access to the transcript which they have twice requested.
Wherefore plaintiffs hereby renew their request to be provided with
minutes of the November 14th proceedings.
It is anticipated that the Magistrate's forthcoming filing(s)
will demand even more that plaintiff rely on referencing the oral
record of the arguments for responding to the Magistrate's pending
Opinions.
Plaintiffs renew their request to be provided with a record of
the oral arguments made at the hearing on defendants Motions For
Summary Judgment in time that plaintiffs might avail themselves of
that record in the preparation of their Response to the Magistrate's
forthcoming Recommendation(s).
Further plaintiffs would like to reserve the option of
supplementing their Responses to the Magistrate's Memorandum
Opinions, Reports & Recommendations On The Motions Of Summary
Judgment Of Defendants Canfield, and Lindsey, filed this date, once
the transcript has become available to them.
Respectfully submitted this _____ day
of January, 1987.
____________________________________
William Thomas, Plaintiff Pro Se
1440 N Street NW, #410, DC 20005
(202) 462-3542
Case Listing --- Proposition One ---- Peace Park