Coates v. Jurado et al

Filing 155

ORDER DENYING 154 Motion to Strike. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford. (MarW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
EMANUEL COATES,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 12-15529
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

JEMER JURADO, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________/
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE [R. 154]
Plaintiff Emanuel Coates (“Coates”), a pro se prisoner, alleges that
Defendants Jemer Jurado, N.P. (“Jurado”), and Corizon Health, Inc.
(collectively “Defendants”)1 were deliberately indifferent to his serious
medical needs in violation of the Eight Amendment by failing to provide him
with a replacement hearing aid. [R. 52]. The Honorable Laurie J.
Michelson referred the case to this Court to resolve all pretrial matters
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). On January 2, 2015,
Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [R. 125]. Before the
Court is Coates’s motion to strike Defendants’ motion for summary
judgment. [R. 154].

1

Coates also named Subrina Aiken, R.N., as a defendant; however, the
Court dismissed her from this action on September 25, 2013. [See R. 59].

Coates argues that the Court should strike Defendants’ motion for
summary judgment as being untimely because dispositive motions were
originally due May 7, 2014. The Court disagrees. As explained previously,
the delay here was caused by Coates’s failure to timely produce relevant
discovery. [R. 133, PgID 2019-23]. As a result of Coates’s conduct, the
Court extended discovery for Defendants and extended the deadline for
filing dispositive motions until April 24, 2015. [Id., PgID 2022-23].
Therefore, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was timely, and
Coates’s motion to strike [R. 154] is DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED.
s/Elizabeth A. Stafford
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: May 27, 2015
NOTICE TO THE PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS
The parties’ attention is drawn to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), which
provides a period of fourteen (14) days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order within which to file objections for consideration by the district
judge under 28 U.S. C. §636(b)(1). Unless ordered otherwise by the Court,
the filing of an appeal to the District Judge does not stay the parties’
obligations in this Order. See E.D. Mich. LR 72.2.

2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served
upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF
System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses
disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on May 27, 2015.
s/Marlena Williams
MARLENA WILLIAMS
Case Manager

3