Moses v. Oller et al

Filing 30

ORDER denying as moot 27 Motion to Compel ; denying as moot 17 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on February 25, 2016. (mll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
KEITH D MOSES
v.

PLAINTIFF
Civil No. 4:15-cv-04002-SOH-BAB

OFFICER OLLER,
OFFICER CASSEY,
OFFICER DUNHAM, and
JAILER HANSON

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Plaintiff, Keith D. Moses, submitted this pro se action for filing in the Eastern District of
Arkansas on December 29, 2014. ECF No. 2. The case was properly transferred to this District on
January 7, 2015. ECF No. 3. Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment
against Defendant Dunham (ECF No. 17) and Motion to Compel Discovery (ECF No. 27)
A.

Motion for Default Judgment

Defendant Dunham filed a Motion for Leave to File Answer Out of Time on August 13,
2014. ECF No. 22. This Motion was granted on August 14, 2015. ECF No. 24. Therefore
Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED as moot.
B.

Motion to Compel

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel on September 10, 2015. This motion requests the Court
to order Defendant Singleton1 and Oller to fully answer his first set of Interrogatories and Request
for Production of Documents. He alleges his discovery requests were submitted on June 3, 2015,
and over seventy days have elapsed since that time. ECF No. 27.
Defendant Dunham filed a response to the motion on September 15, 2015. In his response,
1

Defendant Officer Cassey is identified as Officer Case Singleton in Defendants’ Answer. ECF No. 12.

Defendant Dunham states he has no record of receiving these requests and sees no indication of any
requests filed with the Court. He states he received the first set of discovery requests on September
9, 2015, and therefore had until October 9, 2015 to respond. ECF No. 28. Defendants Casey
Singleton and Oller filed a response on October 8, 2015. They state they received the discovery
requests in June, but they believe they were misplaced during a personnel change. They state they
will forward all responses by October 14, 2015. ECF No. 29. Plaintiff has filed no further motions
to compel and the Court presumes Defendants have complied with their discovery obligations.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED as moot.
Further, the Clerk is DIRECTED to change Defendant “Officer Cassey” to “Officer Casey
Singleton.”
IT IS SO ORDERED this 25th day of February 2016.

/s/ Barry A. Bryant
BARRY A. BRYANT
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE