Maxwell/G-Doffee v. Tyler et al
ORDER denying pltf's 59 Motion for Default Judgment, which might be better characterized as a motion to compel; defts are directed to bring the audio tape of the March 13, 2009, disciplinary hearing to the October 17, 2011, evidentiary hearing, or any other hearing held in this matter. Signed by Magistrate Judge H. David Young on 9/20/11. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
DON MERCELEANY R. MAXWELL/G-DOFFEE
NO: 5:09CV00325 SWW/HDY
A. TYLER et al.
On September 2, 2011, Plaintiff Don Merceleany R. Maxwell/G-Doffee filed a motion for
default judgment against all Defendants (docket entry #59), along with a brief in support (docket
entry #60). Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion on September 16, 2011
(docket entry #64).
According to Plaintiff, he has repeatedly requested audio tapes from February 27, 2004, and
March 13, 2009, disciplinary hearings, but Defendants have refused to provide them. Defendants
assert that they have attempted to locate the 2004 hearing tape, but have been unable to locate it, and
further assert that it has no relevance to this matter. Defendants also have indicated in their response
that they will provide the 2009 hearing tape at the evidentiary hearing scheduled for October 17,
2011, if they are so ordered.
Plaintiff’s motion might be better be characterized as a motion to compel. Regardless, this
case involves the March 13, 2009, hearing, and Defendants need not provide the 2004 tape.
Defendants have agreed to bring the 2009 audio tape to the scheduled hearing. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s motion (docket entry #59) is DENIED. Defendants are directed to bring the audio tape
of the March 13, 2009, disciplinary hearing to the October 17, 2011, evidentiary hearing, or any
other hearing held in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED this
day of September, 2011.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?