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)

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