Caldwell v. Kelly et al

Filing 95

ORDER denying 81 Plaintiff's Motion to Validate and Authenticate Documents; denying 87 Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment; granting 88 Plaintiff's Motion for Ruling; and denying 90 Plaintiff's Motion for Copies. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray on 01/15/2015. (kcs)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION JOHN CALDWELL, ADC #90188 V. PLAINTIFF 5:14CV00042 BSM/JTR WENDY KELLEY, Deputy Director of Health Services, ADC, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff, John Caldwell, has filed this pro se § 1983 action alleging that Defendants failed to provide him with constitutionally adequate medical care. Doc. 2. Plaintiff has recently filed four nondispositive Motions, which the Court will address separately. I. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Ruling Plaintiff has recently filed a Motion seeking a ruling on his Motion to Validate and Authenticate Documents. Doc. 88. The Motion for a Ruling is granted. II. Plaintiff's Motion to Validate and Authenticate Documents Plaintiff alleges that, on November 29, 2014, Defendants improperly mailed him copies of their Motion for Summary Judgment, Statement of Undisputed Facts, and Brief in Support that did not include a file stamp. Docs. 76, 77, & 78. Accordingly, he has filed a Motion asking the Court to “validate and authenticate” Defendants’ summary judgment papers by instructing the Clerk to mail him file stamped copies of those pleadings. Doc. 81. Plaintiff’s request is moot because the Clerk has already mailed him file stamped copies of Defendants’ summary judgment papers. Id. Thus, the Motion is denied.1 III. Plaintiff’s Motion for Copies Plaintiff has filed a Motion seeking a copy of an envelope he allegedly included as an exhibit to his Motion to Validate and Authenticate Documents. Docs. 81 & 90. The Court did not receive any such envelope. Thus, the Motion is denied. IV. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment On December 1, 2014, the Court entered an Order directing Defendants Iko, Floss, and York to file, within fourteen days, supplemental responses to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. Doc. 79. Plaintiff has filed a Motion arguing that he is entitled to default judgment, as a discovery sanction, because Defendants Iko, Floss, and York did not comply with the Court’s December 1, 2014 Order. Doc. 87. Plaintiff’s Motion is denied because, on December 15, 2014, Defendants timely and properly filed their supplemental responses. Doc. 82. Thus, the Motion for Default Judgment is denied. 1 The Court wishes to explain to Plaintiff that defendants often mail plaintiffs courtesy copies of dispositive motions at the same time that they mail those dispositive motions to the Clerk for filing in the record. Thus, it is not unusual for plaintiffs to receive a non-file stamped copy of a dispositive motion from the defendants and then, a few days later, a file stamped copy of those same documents from the Clerk. -2- V. Conclusion IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for a Ruling (Doc. 88) is GRANTED. 2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Validate and Authenticate Documents (Doc. 81) is DENIED. 3. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Default Judgment (Doc. 87) is DENIED. 4. Plaintiff’s Motion for Copies (Doc. 90) is DENIED. Dated this 15th day of January, 2015. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE -3-

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?