Calvin v. May et al
ORDER denying 64 Motion to Continue and 68 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; terminating 65 Motion to Compel; and terminating 67 Motion for Discovery as they are actually requests for discovery from the defts and should be re-docketed as such. Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry L. Jones, Jr on 9/29/09. (bkp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS BATESVILLE DIVISION RAYMOND CALVIN, ADC #118038 v. LARRY MAY, et al. ORDER This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motions to continue, to compel, for discovery, and for an extension of time to complete discovery (DE ##64, 65, 67, 68). In support of his motions to continue and for extension of time to complete discovery, plaintiff asks the Court to continue the Court trial date of January 27, 2010, to allow him more time in which to complete discovery. Plaintiff's motions to compel and for discovery are actually requests for discovery from defendants. Currently, the Court finds plaintiff has sufficient time in which to engage in discovery with defendants, prior to the January 27, 2010 trial date. If discovery is not complete by the November 12, 2009 deadline as set forth in the Scheduling Order, plaintiff may file a motion for extension of time in which to complete such. The Court finds no support for delaying the trial date at this time. Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that plaintiff's motions to continue and for extension of time (DE ##64, 68) are hereby DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motions to compel and for discovery (DE ##65, 67) are actually requests for discovery from the defendants, and should be re-docketed as such. 1:09CV00006HLJ DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF
IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of September, 2009.
__________________________________ United States Magistrate 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?