Jones v. Ward et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER that the defendants' 55 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED with leave to refile after sufficient time for discovery has passed. It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff's 59 Motion for Discovery is GRANTED. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 5/18/2011. (dmn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
FRED HAMIC, et al.,
Case No. 1:10-cv-202-MEF
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Defendants Fred Hamic and the Geneva County
Commission’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 55), filed May 12, 2011. Plaintiff
Donna Jones has responded to the Motion by submitting an affidavit pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). Rule 56(d) provides that “[i]f a nonmovant shows by
affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to
justify its opposition, the court may . . . defer considering the motion [for summary
judgment] or deny it.”
Because there has been no Rule 26(f) conference between the parties and no
scheduling order entered in this case, the plaintiff has not had sufficient time to complete
discovery. Without discovery, the plaintiff is unable to craft a response in opposition to
the defendants’ motion.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment (Doc. # 55) is DENIED with leave to refile after sufficient time for discovery
has passed. It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery (Doc. # 59)
Done this the 18 day of May, 2011.
/s/ Mark E. Fuller
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?