Bradley v. Outlaw

Filing 56

ORDER denying 51 Plaintiff's Motion for Discovery and denying 52 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 05/10/2012. (kcs)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION CORY DEONTRA BRADLEY REG #31675-044 V. PLAINTIFF 2:11CV00153 JMM/JTR RONNIE MEADOWS, Senior Officer, FCI-Forrest City, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff, Cory Deontra Bradley, has filed this pro se action alleging that Defendants violated his constitutional rights and the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”). There are two nondispositive Motions pending, which the Court will address separately. I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery On May 2, 2012, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Discovery” asking the Court to compel Defendants to produce photographs, video recordings, and other evidence regarding the merits of his claims. See docket entry #51. On April 20, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff’s previously filed Motion to Compel that sought the same type of evidence. Id. Additionally, the Court stayed discovery on “any matters, other than the exhaustion of administrative remedies . . . until the Court rules on Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (docket entry #40).” Id. at 9. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery is denied. II. Plaintiff’s Fourth Motion to Amend the Complaint On May 3, 2012, Plaintiff sent the Court a letter, which was filed as his Fourth Motion to Amend the Complaint. See docket entry #52. In that pleading, Plaintiff states that he is currently being denied access to the law library, retaliated against, and inadequately protected from potential harm by other inmates. Id. As previously explained to Plaintiff in the April 20, 2012 Order, he cannot add any claims that arose after he commenced this action, on August 29, 2011. See docket entry #48. Additionally, the proposed new claims are legally and factually distinct from the claims already pending in this lawsuit. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Fourth Motion to Amend the Complaint is denied. III. Conclusion IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery (docket entry #51) is DENIED. 2. Plaintiff’s Fourth Motion to Amend the Complaint (docket entry #52) is DENIED. Dated this 10th day of May, 2012. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -2-

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?