Wilson v. City of Wilmington, Department of Licenses and Inspections

Filing 101

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge Leonard P. Stark on 3/13/15. (mas, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

KEVIN E. WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

Civ. No. 13-1390-LPS

CITY OF WILMINGTON, et ai.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
1.

Introduction. Plaintiff Kevin E. Wilson ("Plaintiff") flled this employment

discrimination action pursuant to 42 US.c. § 2000e-5. He appears pro se and has paid the filing fee.
Before the Court is a motion to amend, motions for a reference of this matter to a U.S. Magistrate
Judge, and discovery motions.
2.

The Court imposed the following deadlines: (1) all motions to join other parties and

amend the pleadings shall be f1led on or before April 14, 2014; (2) all discovery in this case shall be
initiated so that it will be completed on or before October 14,2014; (3) all summary judgment
motions and an opening brief and affidavits, if any, in support of the motion, shall be served and
flled on or before November 17, 2014. (See D.L 13)
3.

Motion to Amend. Plaintiff moves to amend to add a new claim. (D.L 15)

Defendants oppose the motion on the grounds that it is untimely and that Plaintiff failed to exhaust
his administrative remedies as to the new claim. (D.L 16) Plaintiff recently moved to withdraw the
motion to amend. (D.L 88) Therefore, the Court will deny the motion to amend as moot and will
grant the motion to withdraw the motion to amend.

1

4.

Motions to Refer to a Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff moves the Court to refer this

matter to a U.S. Magistrate Judge. (D.l. 23,24) Defendants oppose this request. In order for
dispositive motions to be resolved by a Magistrate Judge - as opposed to a Magistrate Judge making
a recommendation, to which either party may object and obtain de novo review by a District Judge
all parties must consent. See 28 U.S.c. § 636(c); DeL LR 73.1. That has not occurred here. The
Court sees no need to refer motions for a Magistrate Judge to provide reports and
recommendations. Accordingly, the Court \-vill deny the motions.
5.

Discovery. Plaintiff moves to extend the discovery deadline (D.l. 51, 52, 95), and

Defendants do not oppose the motions (D.l. 56, 96). The Court will grant the motions to amend
the discovery deadline and will also amend the deadline for filing dispositive motions.
6.

Plaintiff also moves for permission to allow non-parties to attend his deposition.

(D.l. 53) Defendants oppose the motion. Typically, non-parties attend depositions only when they
have been subpoenaed to testify at their own deposition. Plaintiff did not provide any justification
for non-parties to attend and observe his deposition. Therefore, the Court will deny the motion.
An appropriate Order follows.

Dated: March , "}, 2015

2