Gregory v. Gentry et al

Filing 47

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)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JONESBORO DIVISION JAMES C GREGORY v. PLAINTIFF 3:12-cv-00013-BRW CODY GENTRY, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER 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 1 Doc. 46. 2 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)). 3 Doc. No. 41. 4 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?