McGowan v. Harrington et al

Filing 166

ORDER MOOTING 150 MOTION giving notice of denial of access to the Court filed by Michael McGowan; DENYING 151 MOTION seeking clarification as to the ruling on his Motions for declaratory judgment and subpoena for production that were both granted in part filed by Michael McGowan. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on 9/8/15. (sgp)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
R. SHEARING, ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT)
OF CORRECTIONS, WEXFORD HEALTH)
)
SOURCES, INC., and ANGELA CRAIN,
)
)
Defendants.
MICHAEL MCGOWAN,

Case No. 3:14-cv-14-NJR-DGW

ORDER
WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge:
Now pending before the Court are the Motion Giving Notice of Denial of Access to the
Court filed by Plaintiff, Michael McGowan, on June 22, 2015 (Doc. 150) and the Motion for
Clarification filed by Plaintiff on June 22, 2015 (Doc. 151).
The Motion Giving Notice of Denial of Access is MOOT. Plaintiff does not seek any
relief by way of this motion that is relevant to the case at bar.
The Motion for Clarification is DENIED. The Order referred to by Plaintiff, entered on
April 20, 2015 (Doc. 126) speaks for itself.
However, in light of the number of discovery disputes in this matter and Plaintiff’s filings
regarding such disputes, the Court notes that Plaintiff Motions (Docs. 91 and 92), notwithstanding
their titles, were essentially Motions to Compel. This Court directed the IDOC Defendants to
respond to various discovery (outlined in these motions and elsewhere) and file the same with the
Court. Defendants filed their responses on May 20, 2015 (Doc. 145). To the extent that those
responses are inadequate, Plaintiff should have raised such issues at the June 9, 2015 conference.
Plaintiff states that he did not have the response in front of him at the conference; however, it is
Page 1 of 2

apparent that he did have a copy of the responses prior to the hearing. Plaintiff further was
instructed that, at the June 9, 2015 hearing, “the parties should be prepared to discuss any
outstanding discovery disputes” (Doc. 126). To the extent that the discovery responses are now
objectionable (and Plaintiff does not specify which responses he believes are inadequate), such
arguments have been waived.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 8, 2015

DONALD G. WILKERSON
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2 of 2