Conway v. Hobbs et al
ORDER denying 25 Motion to Compel; granting 27 Motion to Extend Time. Defendant is directed to file any dispositive motions on or before 04/13/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 04/10/2012. (kcs)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
BYRON L. CONWAY,
Deputy Director of Health,
Arkansas Department of Correction
Plaintiff, Byron Conway, has filed this pro se § 1983 action alleging that
Defendant Wendy Kelley failed to take proper corrective action in responses to his
grievances alleging inadequate medical care. See docket entries #2. There are two
non-dispositive Motions pending, which the Court will address separately.
I. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Plaintiff has filed a Motion (docket entry #25) alleging that Defendant failed
to respond to Interrogatories and Requests for Production that he allegedly “filed” on
or about August 22, 2012. No such discovery requests were “filed” in the record for
this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d) (providing that discovery requests and responses
will not be filed in the record, and instead, must be mailed directly to counsel for the
opposing party). Additionally, Defendant states that she never received any discovery
requests from Plaintiff. See docket entry #26. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel
II. Defendant’s Motion for an Extension of Time
Defendant has filed a Motion seeking a one week extension of the dispositive
motion deadline. See docket entry #27. The Court finds the request to be reasonable.
Accordingly, the Motion for an Extension of Time is granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (docket entry #25) is DENIED.
Defendant’s Motion for an Extension of Time (docket entry #27) is
GRANTED, and she has until April 13, 2012 to file any dispostive motions.
Dated this 10th day of April, 2012.
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?