Foots v. Rose et al

Filing 26

ORDER denying 23 Motion to Compel. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on March 30, 2017. (mll)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS TEXARKANA DIVISION RONNIE DEON FOOTS v. PLAINTIFF Civil No. 4:16-cv-04044 VICTOR C. ROSE, Sheriff, Lafayette County; THEARTICE EARLY, Lewisville Police Department (LPD); CHIEF TUMBERLIN, LPD; OFFICER COX, LPD; DR. AUTUEN; And OFFICER CLARK, LPD DEFENDANTS ORDER Plaintiff Ronnie Deon Foots proceeds in this matter pro se and in forma pauperis pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel. ECF No. 23. Defendants have filed Responses. ECF Nos. 24, 25. Plaintiff’s asserts “I’m now only getting half of a response from my Interrogatories” and asks the Court to compel Defendants to produce “1. Copies of Indictment and Warrant. 2. Copies of ER report from Magnolia Regional Center 3. Along with the Ambulance report. 4 Who is responsible for making medical choices. 5. State the date and times that the Lafayette county jail consultants with my primary doctor Dr Arrington.” ECF No. 23. Defendants represent they are in the process of providing additional information to Plaintiff in the time provided by law and that Plaintiff did not attempt to notify Defendants of his dissatisfaction with the responses or resolve the dispute without court intervention. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 23) is DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of March 2017. /s/ Barry A. Bryant________ HON. BARRY A. BRYANT 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?