Foots v. Rose et al
Filing
26
ORDER denying 23 Motion to Compel. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on March 30, 2017. (mll)
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?