Stanley v. Meier et al

Filing 50

ORDER denying 38 Motion to Compel; denying 43 Motion for Order; denying 49 Motion for Order. See attached Ruling and Order. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Smith on February 28, 2011. (Keefe, B.)

Stanley v. Meier et al

Doc. 50

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

STEVEN K. STANLEY, Plaintiff, v. SGT. MEIER, et al., Defendants. Case No. 3:09-cv-1643(CFD)(TPS)

RULING AND ORDER Plaintiff has filed two motions seeking court assistance in obtaining discovery materials in this case. The court has

previously explained to plaintiff that discovery requests should not be filed with the court. See Doc. ## 20, 37. In addition, the

court has explained in prior rulings that, if he is not satisfied with responses to his discovery requests, plaintiff must file a motion to compel that complies with local court rules. See Doc.

#30. Accordingly, plaintiff's motions [Docs. ##38, 49] are DENIED. Plaintiff also has filed a document entitled "Motion for Order Mark Ready for Ruling" in which he seeks the opportunity to respond to all motions before a ruling is entered. Plaintiff does not have

an absolute right to respond to every motion filed by defendants. For example, local court rules permit the court to rule ex parte on motions for extension of time. D. Conn. L. Civ. R. 7(b)3.

Plaintiff also asks the court to schedule a status conference

Dockets.Justia.com

in this case.

The court recently extended the discovery and No status conference is required at this

dispositive deadlines. time.

Plaintiff's motion [Doc. #43] is DENIED.

SO ORDERED this 28th day of February 2011, at Hartford, Connecticut. /s/ Thomas P. Smith Thomas P. Smith United States Magistrate Judge

2