Mathis v. King et al
ORDER denying 22 Motion to Supplement; denying 23 Motion to Amend Initial Scheduling Order. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on August 23, 2017. (mll)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JOHN HUSSEL MATHIS, III
Civil No. 4:16-cv-04105
NURSE S. KING, Southern Health
Partners; LIEUTENANT GOLDEN
ADAMS; WARDEN M. MOORE;
GRIEVANCE OFFICER A. LANDRETH;
And SHERIFF RON STOVALL, Miller
Plaintiff John Hussel Mathis, III filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se on November 2,
2016. ECF No. 1. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend his Complaint (ECF
No. 22) and Motion to Amend Initial Scheduling Order. (ECF No. 23).
On January 31, 2017, I entered an Initial Scheduling Order which set forth various
deadlines for this case. (ECF No. 11). The deadline for the parties to file motions to amend
pleadings was May 1, 2017. The deadline for discovery was June 1, 2017.1
On July 14, 2017 Defendant Steven King filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF
No. 14). On July 31, 2017, Defendants Adams, Landreth, Moore and Stovall filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 18). The deadlines for Plaintiff to amend his Complaint and
conduct discovery expired months ago.
Plaintiff alleges in his Motion to Amend the Initial Scheduling Order that Defendants
withheld his medical records. However, the Initial Scheduling Order clearly states any problems
with discovery were to be brought to the Court’s attention within twenty days after the discovery
response was due. (ECF No. 11). Plaintiff did not file a motion to compel with the Court and it
is not clear if Plaintiff ever requested his medical records from Defendants.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend (ECF No. 22) and Motion to Amend
Initial Scheduling Order (ECF No. 23) are DENIED as untimely.
IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 23rd day of August 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?