Michalek v. Lunsford et al

Filing 75

ORDER granting 72 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. Denying, 53 Defendants' Renewed Joint Motion for Summary Judgment, without prejudice to Defendants' refiling that motion within the deadlines specified in the Final Sc heduling Order. A Final Scheduling Order will be entered, setting new discovery and motions deadlines, and a trial date. All deadlines in the Final Scheduling Order are immutable. Any future request by counsel to change any of those deadlines will be summarily denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 02/19/2014. (kcs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
BRIAN JUDAH MICHALEK
V.

PLAINTIFF

NO. 4:11CV00685 JTR

PATRICK LUNSFORD, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Renewed Joint Motion for Summary
Judgment, Doc. #53. Through appointed counsel, Plaintiff has filed a Reply, Doc. #73,
and a Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, Doc. #72.
Neither of Plaintiff’s previous two appointed attorneys conducted any discovery
or filed any amended pleadings in this matter. Plaintiff’s current attorney asserts that,
without the benefit of discovery, he cannot adequately respond to Defendants’
Renewed Joint Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Scheduling Order is granted.1 Defendants’
Renewed Joint Motion for Summary Judgment is denied, without prejudice to
Defendants’ refiling that Motion within the deadlines specified in the Final

1

The Court has granted this extension based solely on Plaintiff’s counsel’s
assertion that he must conduct discovery in order to respond to Defendants’ Renewed
Joint Motion for Summary Judgment. Simply put, Plaintiff’s counsel allowed far too
much time to go by before deciding that he needs more time to conduct discovery. Having
now fully and completely exhausted the Court’s patience, Plaintiff’s counsel should
understand that his first priority must be to prepare this case for trial and that no further
delays will be tolerated.

Scheduling Order.
A Final Scheduling Order will be entered, setting new discovery and motions
deadlines, and a trial date.2 ALL DEADLINES IN THE FINAL SCHEDULING
ORDER ARE IMMUTABLE. ANY FUTURE REQUEST BY COUNSEL TO
CHANGE ANY OF THOSE DEADLINES WILL BE SUMMARILY DENIED.
DATED THIS 19th DAY OF February, 2014.

____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

On February 13, 2014, a Consent to Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate
Judge was entered, showing that all parties had consented in writing to allow this Court to
exercise plenary jurisdiction in this case. Doc. #74. On February 19, 2014, the Court
conducted a telephone conference with counsel who agreed to all of the deadlines that the
Court will incorporate into the Final Scheduling Order.

-2-