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)

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-