Atcherley v. Clark et al

Filing 178

ORDER Regarding Plaintiff's 144 Motion to Compel Defendant Ceballos to Provide a Further Response to Request for Admissions Number 27 signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 12/02/2014. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILBUR ATCHERLEY,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

CLARK, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:12cv00225 LJO DLB (PC)
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
TO COMPEL DEFENDANT CEBALLOS TO
PROVIDE A FURTHER RESPONSE TO
REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS NUMBER 27
(Document 144)

Plaintiff William Atcherley (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Second
Amended Complaint, filed on October 14, 2014, for violation of the Eighth Amendment and
negligence against numerous Defendants.

21

On October 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant Ceballos to provide a

22
further response to Number 27 of his Second Set of Requests for Admissions.
23
Defendant Ceballos opposed the motion on November 7, 2014, and indicates that rather than
24
25

continue the dispute with Plaintiff, she has served a supplemental response.1

26
27
1

28

The Court recognizes that it recently informed Plaintiff that it would take his November 3, 2014, surgery and subsequent
hospitalization into account when calculating briefing periods. However, a reply is not necessary in this instance.

1

1
2

Accordingly, as the supplemental response appears to provide a complete answer, Plaintiff’s
motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5
Dated:
6

/s/ Dennis

December 2, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2