Bell v. Burl et al

Filing 59

ORDER denying, as moot, 55 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel; granting 57 Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to 49 Defendants' MOTION for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff is directed to file a Response that complies with the instructions in the 2/5/2015 Order on or before 3/27/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 02/25/2014. (kcs)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HELENA DIVISION JOE LEONARD BELL, JR., V. PLAINTIFF 2:13CV00054 DPM/JTR DANNY BURL, Warden; and JEREMY ANDREWS, Major, East Arkansas Regional Unit, ADC, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff has filed a Motion asking the Court to compel Defendants to produce three documents that were reviewed during his May 25, 2011 disciplinary hearing. Doc. 55. Defendants argue that the Motion to Compel is improper because Plaintiff has not previously sent them a request for production seeking copies of those documents. Doc. 58. Nevertheless, Defendants have recently sent Plaintiff a copy of the requested documents. Thus, the Motion to Compel is moot. Plaintiff also seeks an additional thirty days to file his Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. 57. The Court finds good cause for granting that request. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Doc. 55) is DENIED AS MOOT. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for an Extension of Time (Doc. 57) is GRANTED, and he must file, or before March 27, 2014, a Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment that complies with the instructions in the February 5, 2014 Order. Dated this 25th day of February, 2014. 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?