McNeal v. Evert, et al

Filing 245

ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 1/11/2016 ORDERING The court DECLINES to allow discovery at this late date simply because Plaintiff did not obtain various items of evidence during the discovery period or seek further relief from the court after his initial motions to compel were denied; the 2/24/2015 Pretrial Order is final, as supplemented by the 5/22/2015 Supplement to the Pretrial Order 206 , and the Second Supplement to the Pretrial Order 210 . (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

VERNON WAYNE McNEAL,

8
9
10
11

No. 2:05-cv-00441 GEB EFB P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

EVERT, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

Plaintiff filed objections to the February 24, 2015 Pretrial Order. (Pl.’s Objs., ECF

14

No. 185.) The court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections and finds that Plaintiff has not shown that

15

modification of that order is necessary. Plaintiff is advised that he will have the opportunity to

16

present his version of the facts, question witnesses, and object to evidence at trial. While Plaintiff

17

is a pro se inmate litigant, he must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court

18

declines to allow discovery at this late date simply because Plaintiff did not obtain various items

19

of evidence during the discovery period or seek further relief from the court after his initial

20

motions to compel were denied.

21

The February 24, 2015 Pretrial Order is final, as supplemented by the May 22,

22

2015 Supplement to the Pretrial Order, (ECF No. 206), and the Second Supplement to the Pretrial

23

Order, (ECF No. 210).

24
25

So ordered.
Dated: January 11, 2016

26
27
28
1