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)

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.