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)

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.