Gregory v. Gentry et al

Filing 53

ORDER denying without prejudice 50 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Billy Roy Wilson on 5/23/2012. (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 pro se Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 50). A May 14, 2012 Order1 denied without prejudice a motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff on April 30, 2012, because Defendants in this case were served only on April 5, 20122 and had not had time to conduct discovery. “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.”3 Plaintiff contends that “[i]f the Appellees want to depose Mr. Gregory, they have had almost 2 years to do so and have shown no intent to do so until the last second of this case.”4 Again, Defendants were served only on April 5, 2012. I find that Defendants have not had time to conduct adequate discovery; therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion (Doc. No. 50) is premature and is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of May, 2012. /s/Billy Roy Wilson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 Doc. No. 47. 2 Doc. Nos. 36-38. 3 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)). 4 Doc. No. 49.

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?