seal

Court Case Record DONAL COLEMAN vs. TOWN OF ANDOVER & others 2012-J-0016 UID(261b)


DONAL COLEMAN vs. TOWN OF ANDOVER & others Court Case Record

Court Case Number: 2012-J-0016


 
Case Number2012-J-0016
Case TitleDONAL COLEMAN vs. TOWN OF ANDOVER & others
Case TypeCivil
StateMassachusetts, MA
CountyEssex
CourtEssex Superior Court
Court Address
Phone
Field Date01/12/2012
Close Date02/17/2012

Parties

CounselNameType
Donal ColemanPro Se Plaintiff/Petitioner
Daniel G. Skrip, Esquire Daniel S. McInnis, EsquireTown of AndoverDefendant/Respondent
Daniel G. Skrip, Esquire Daniel S. McInnis, EsquireJoan LemieuxDefendant/Respondent
Daniel G. Skrip, Esquire Daniel S. McInnis, EsquirePiere LemieuxDefendant/Respondent
DOCKET ENTRIES
Entry Date Paper Entry Text
01/12/2012 #1 Motion to waive entry fee, filed by Donal Coleman, is allowed.
01/12/2012 #2 Motion for stay under M.R.A.P. 6(a) with attachments, filed by Donal Coleman.
01/17/2012 #3 RE#2: Denied without prejudice to the trial court ruling on petitioner's motion in the manner it deems appropriate (Grainger, J.). *Notice/attest/Cornetta, J.
02/13/2012 Reconsider appeals of 2/2/12 decision prays amended complaint be allowed to stand and stay order, or prays more time to file definite statement, filed by Donal Coleman.^
02/17/2012 RE#3: To the extent the plaintiff seeks recusal of the trial court judge, the motion is denied. To the extent the plaintiff seeks an enlargement of time to file a more definite statement, beyond the due date of 1/9/12, as allowed by the trial court, no action is necessary, as it appears from a review of the docket that the plaintiff, on 1/9/12, did file with the court a Definite Statement. See P#34. The motion for stay is denied, as the plaintiff's cursory request for relief offers neither an explanation of the order to be stayed nor reasons warranting a grant of such relief. (Agnes, J.) *Notice/Attest.
02/22/2012 RE#3: (supplemental action) I have been informed by the clerk's office that the petitioner orally requested that I review the motion he filed on 2/13/12 (paper #3) because earlier, on 1/17/12, I had acted on his motion to stay (paper #2). The petitioner's position is that I, and not Judge Agnes, should have ruled on paper # 3. I disagree. My action dated 1/17/12 ("Denied without prejudice to the trial court ruling on petitioner's motion in the manner it deems appropriate.") was ministerial and procedural, and there was no reason for me to review the subsequent filing instead of the single justice (Agnes, J.) assigned to February matters. Further, I concur with the order of Judge Agnes dated 2/17/12 and I would not have entered any substantially different order (Grainger, J.). *Notice/attest