Stewart et al v. Conrad et al
ORDER denying 104 MOTION to Continue filed by Terrance Proctor; granting pltf's 106 MOTION for Service on Grant Harris; Grant Harris added; the U.S. Marshal is directed to serve summons, complaint, and this Order on Harris without prepayment of fees and costs. Signed by Magistrate Judge H. David Young on 2/29/12. (vjt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
RHONDA KAY STEWART et al.
NO: 5:11CV00179 JMM/HDY
SHERRY A. CONRAD et al.
Plaintiff Terrance Proctor has filed a motion to continue the pre-jury evidentiary hearing
scheduled for March 5, 2012 (docket entry #104), and a motion for service for Grant Harris.
Defendants have filed responses opposing both motions (docket entries #109-#110).
Proctor seeks a continuance, or in the alternative, an order directing Defendants to respond
to his discovery requests before the hearing. According to Defendants’ response (docket entry
#109), they have now responded to the discovery requests. Accordingly, Proctor’s motion for a
continuance is moot.
Proctor’s motion for service for Harris is essentially a motion to amend to add Harris as a
Defendant. Because it appears that Proctor originally intended to name Harris as a Defendant, and
Harris is named on the first page and in the body of the complaint, the motion will be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
Proctor’s motion to continue (docket entry #104) is DENIED.
Proctor’s motion for service for Grant Harris is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed
to add Harris as a Defendant, and to prepare a summons for Harris. The United States Marshal is
directed to serve a copy of the complaint (docket entry #1), this order, and summons on Harris,
without prepayment of fees and costs or security therefor.
DATED this 29
day of February, 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?