Jones v. Ward et al

Filing 81

ORDER that Plaintiff's 79 Objection is OVERRULED as further set out in the order. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 7/1/2011. (dmn)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION DONNA JONES, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, v. FRED HAMIC, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:10-cv-202-MEF (WO) ORDER This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s Objections to the Court’s Uniform Scheduling Order. (Doc. # 79). The Court recognizes that in the Report of Parties’ Rule 26 Planning Meeting (“the report”), the parties could not agree on a date for the close of discovery. Such a dispute regarding deadlines is one ordinarily resolved by the district court, and not referred to the magistrate. In the parties’ report, the Plaintiff proposed that discovery be completed 30 days after the dispositive motion deadline. (Doc. # 72). The Defendants proposed that discovery be completed 30 days prior to the dispositive motion deadline. Id. In selecting a deadline for the close of discovery, the Court split the difference and ordered that the close of discovery will coincide with the dispositive motion deadline. The Court views this as a fair resolution of the parties’ dispute, and accordingly, the Plaintiff’s objection is OVERRULED. Done this the 1st day of July, 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?