Gregory v. Gentry et al
ORDER denying without prejudice 41 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; finding as moot 46 Defendant's Motion to Extend Time. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 5/14/2012. (jct)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JAMES C GREGORY
CODY GENTRY, et al.
Pending is Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 41). Defendants have filed
a Response seeking additional time to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion because they have not had time
to conduct discovery.1 For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is
DENIED without prejudice.
“Although discovery need not be complete before a case is dismissed, summary judgment
is proper only if the nonmovant has had adequate time for discovery.”2 Plaintiff filed his current
Motion on April 30, 2012.3 At this time, discovery has not begun and the Initial Scheduling Order
has just been issued.4 I find that Defendants have not had time to conduct adequate discovery;
therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. No. 41) is premature and is DENIED without prejudice. Based
on this ruling, Defendants’ Motion (Doc. No. 46) is MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 14th day of May, 2012.
/s/Billy Roy Wilson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Martindale Corp. v. Heartland Inns of America, LLC, No. 08-CV2065-LRR, 2009 WL
362270, at *1 (N.D. Iowa, Feb. 11, 2009) (quoting Robinson v. Terex Corp., 439 F.3d 465, 467
(8th Cir. 2006)).
Doc. No. 41.
Doc. No. 44.
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?