Davis v. Standford et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying 49 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and 53 Motion for Copy of Deposition, as moot; and denying 52 Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 02/26/2015. (kcs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
NORTHERN DIVISION

BRENT LAVON DAVIS,
ADC #149851
V.

PLAINTIFF
1:14CV00046 DPM/JTR

RHONDA STANDFORD,
Nurse, Grimes Unit, ADC et al.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff, Brent Lavon Davis, has filed two non-dispositive Motions. The Court
will consider each Motion separately.
I. Motion to Compel and Motion for Copy of Deposition
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel and his Motion seeking a copy of his deposition
are denied as moot because Defendants have already provided Plaintiff with a copy
of his deposition and the related documents. Docs. 49, 53, & 54.
II. Motion for Reconsideration
On January 6, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants
to allow him to review his irrelevant medical records stored in Pine Bluff. Doc. 46.
Plaintiff has recently filed a Motion for Reconsideration explaining that he also seeks
copies of his relevant medical records stored at the Varner Unit. Doc. 52. Legitimate
security concerns prevent prisoners from having such documents in their possession

while in prison. Instead, Defendants have properly allowed Plaintiff to review his
prison file and take notes. If Defendants file a Motion for Summary Judgment,
Plaintiff can ask them for copies of relevant portions of his prison file that are not
already attached to Defendants' Motion. If Defendants do not provide such copies,
Plaintiff should promptly refile his Motion to Compel. Further, if this case proceeds
to trial, the Court will order Defendants to provide Plaintiff with copies of relevant
prison records and to bring Plaintiff’s complete prison file to Court.
Accordingly, the Motion to Compel is denied.
III. Conclusion
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc.49) and Motion for Copy of

Deposition (Doc. 53) are DENIED, AS MOOT.
2.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 52) is DENIED.

Dated this 26th day of February, 2015.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-