Woods v. Shane A Walters et al

Filing 50

ORDER DENYING 42 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 4/9/13. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
MAURICE ANTONIO WOODS,
Plaintiff,
v.
SHANE
A.
WALTERS,
PAUL
SCHNEPPER, and BILLINGTON,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
D. )
)
)
)

Case No. 3:11-cv-595-GPM-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court is the Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff, Maurice Antonio
Woods, on December 6, 2012 (Doc. 42). The Motion is DENIED.
Plaintiff seeks a Court order compelling Defendants to provide video, photographic, and
documentary evidence regarding the incident at issue in this matter. While Defendants responded
to Plaintiff’s original discovery request, they did not respond to the pending Motion within the
time provided by Local Rule 7.1. On February 20, 2013, this Court took Plaintiff’s Motion under
advisement and directed Defendants to notify the Court as to whether documents related to the
incident exist, have been provided to Plaintiff, or have been withheld for a specified reason.
Defendants were also instructed to provide the names of any fact witnesses of which they are
aware. Finally, Plaintiff was directed to specify the location of persons he believes witnessed the
events and a clearer statement of how certain evidence is relevant and discoverable. The parties
were directed to respond this Court’s Order by March 11, 2013. Defendants filed a response on
March 8, 2013 (Doc. 49); however, Plaintiff has not filed any response.
In their response Defendants state that they have served various documents upon Plaintiff

including grievances, disciplinary records, incident reports of correctional officers, and Plaintiff’s
medical records. Defendants further indicate that they have provided a list of inmates housed
near Plaintiff during the relevant time period and they there are no internal investigation
documents related to this matter. The Court finds that Defendants have complied with their
obligations under the Federal Rules and the Orders of this Court. Plaintiff has not indicated in
what manner the discovery is deficient nor has he complied with this Court’s February 20, 2013
Order (Doc. 48).
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion to Compel filed by Plaintiff on December 6, 2013 is
DENIED.

DATED: April 8, 2013

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

2