Coleman v. Calvert County et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 4/24/2017. (aos, Deputy Clerk)
IN TIlE UNITED STATES DISTRICT couln
FOR TilE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
\VA YNE E. COLEMAN.
Case No.: G.JII-15-0920
CAL VERT COUNTY, el al.•
Presently pending beli.)re the Court is a Motion li.Jr Sanctions or. In the Alternati\'e.
Motion to Amend the Scheduling
Order. ECF No. 44. tiled by Defendants
Phelps. and Ofticer Golt (OODelcndants
). o hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105,6 (D. Md.
2(16). For the ti.)II01\'ing reasons. Detcndants'
Motion is granted. in part. and denied. in part. The
Order will be amended. extending
I'm.l'l' plaintiff Wayne E. Coleman
and other defcndants.
brought suit against Evans. Phelps. Golt.
alleging violations of his civil rights. pursuant to 42 U.s.c.
ti'om a traftic stop in February 2014. Sec lOCI' No. 16. Upon Detcndants'
ECF No. 27. the Court dismissed all but one aspect of Count I ofPlaintitrs
that is. the unreasonable
I Pin cites to doculllents
Motion to Dismiss.
search and seizure claim against Gott. Phelps. and E\'ans in their
See ECF No. 32 at 1.1 The Court issued a Scheduling
2016. requiring all depositions
by that systC:ll1.
~ 19X3. arising
and other discovery
filed Of) the Court"s electronic
to be completed
tiling system (CM/ECF)
Order on October 6.
by January 16. 2017, ECF
refer to the page ntJlnbcrs generated
No. Jo. The Court granted Plaintitrs
No. J9-J at 2. Iklcndants
J9-1 at J. On November
21. 2016. Delendants'
did not appear Ii)r the deposition
answer or respond to Delcndants'
ECF No. J9-1 at 2: IOcr
22. 2016. Id. According
fd. lie also inquired about the possibility of conducting
liled their first Motion IiII' Sanctions
provide fiJiI and complete
Mareh 5. 2017. ~CF No. 4J. Delcndants
to issue sanctions.
some \\Titten responses
have not !iled a Motion to Compel.
time at home'"
against Coleman on January J 1.2017.
by March O. 2017. lOCI' No. 42. Plaintiff Ii led
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?