Reese v. Thompson

Filing 52

ORDER (1) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO CHANGE PLAINTIFF'S ADDRESS OF RECORD TO DRF, (2) REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO SERVE A COPY OF HIS PENDING MOTION UPON PLAINTIFF AT DRF, (3) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME (ECF No. 50 ), and (4) SETTING DEADLINES ( Discovery due by 8/8/2024, Dispositive Motion Cut-off set for 8/30/2024), 46 MOTION for Summary Judgment :( Response due by 7/12/2024) Signed by Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. (KBro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
TERRELL RAVON REESE
(#669959),

Case No. 2:22-cv-12369
District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith
Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti

Plaintiff,
v.
CHARLES THOMPSON,
Defendant.

/

ORDER (1) DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE COURT TO CHANGE
PLAINTIFF’S ADDRESS OF RECORD TO DRF, (2) REQUIRING
DEFENDANT TO SERVE A COPY OF HIS PENDING MOTION UPON
PLAINTIFF AT DRF, (3) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
ENLARGEMENT OF TIME (ECF No. 50), and (4) SETTING DEADLINES
A.

Plaintiff’s Address of Record
Terrell Ravon Reese (“Plaintiff”) filed this matter in pro per in October

2022, while he was located at the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC)
Earnest C. Brooks Correctional Facility (LRF), against a single Defendant –
Macomb Correctional Facility (MRF) Corrections Officer Charles Thompson.
(ECF Nos. 1, 37, 45.) Since the initiation of this lawsuit, Plaintiff has changed his
address of record to the MDOC’s Bellamy Creek Correctional Facility (IBC).
(See, e.g., ECF Nos. 9, 10, 48.)

Scheduling Order / Page 1

IBC remains Plaintiff’s address of record, even though he is currently
located at the MDOC’s Carson City Correctional Facility (DRF). See
www.michigan.gov/corrections, “Offender Search,” last visited May 8, 2024.
During the May 8, 2024 video status conference, Plaintiff confirmed his location as
DRF and even informed the Court that he had mailed a change of address on May
1, 2024. Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to change
Plaintiff’s address of record to DRF.
B.

Defendant’s Pending Motion & Plaintiff’s Motion for Enlargement of
Time
This case has been referred to me for pretrial proceedings. (ECF No. 18.)

Currently pending before the Court is Defendant Thompson’s March 25, 2024
motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 46), as to which Plaintiff’s response
ordinarily would have been due on Monday, April 15, 2024. See E.D. Mich. LR
7.1(e)(2) (21 days). On April 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for an enlargement
of time. (ECF No. 50.)
Upon consideration, and consistent with the discussion at the video status
conference: (1) Defendant SHALL serve a copy of his motion (ECF No. 46) upon
Plaintiff at DRF; and, (2) Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 50) is GRANTED, and he
shall have up to and including Monday, July 12, 2024 by which to file a response
to Defendant’s pending motion (ECF No. 46).

Scheduling Order / Page 2

C.

Setting Deadlines
During the May 8, 2024 video status conference, which Plaintiff and defense

counsel (Attorney Joshua C. Castmore) attended remotely, the Court set the
following, additional case management dates:
YOU MAY RECEIVE NO FURTHER NOTICE OF THESE DATES
EVENT/ITEM
Expert Reports

DEADLINE
In accordance with Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(a)(2)

Witness Lists

June 24, 2024

Fact Discovery

August 8, 2024

Plaintiff’s Dispositive Motion(s) (Defendant
having confirmed that its pending motion for
summary judgment will suffice)

August 30, 2024

Final Pretrial Conference

To be determined

Trial

To be determined

The parties are also advised of the following:
I.

II.

III.

All parties are required to adhere to Judge Patti’s Practice Guidelines,
which can be accessed at
https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/index.cfm?pageFunction=chambers&j
udgeid=51.
Computation of time under this order and under any notice of any
scheduling order or notice in this cause shall be in conformity and
accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a).
DISCOVERY. Discovery must be completed by the discovery cut-off
date, after which, this Court will not order discovery to take place.
All discovery shall be served sufficiently in advance of the discovery
cutoff to allow the opposing party adequate time to serve responses

Scheduling Order / Page 3

under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure prior to the close of
discovery. Parties may agree to extend the deadlines by submitting a
joint motion with a proposed order to the Court for consideration.
The extension should not affect the other scheduled dates.
IV.

DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS. No party may file more than one motion
for summary judgment without obtaining leave of court.
In motions filed under Rule 56, the moving party shall serve and file:
1) any affidavits and other materials referred to in Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(e) and 2) a supporting memorandum of law in strict compliance
with E.D. Mich. LR 7.1. The motion must begin with a “Statement
of Material Facts” consisting of separately numbered paragraphs
briefly describing the material facts underlying the motion, sufficient
to support judgment. Proffered facts must be supported with
citations to the pleadings, interrogatories, admissions, depositions,
affidavits, or documentary exhibits. Citations should contain page
and line references, as appropriate.1
The full text of any source cited should be filed with the Court in a
Fact Appendix. The Fact Appendix shall contain an index, followed
by the tabbed exhibits. Chambers’ copies of Fact Appendices of
more than 20 pages must be separately bound and include a cover
sheet identifying the motion to which they are appended. All pages
from the same deposition or document should be at the same tab.
The Statement of Material Facts counts against the page limit for the
brief. No separate narrative facts section shall be permitted.
Likewise, a party opposing a Rule 56 Motion shall serve and file: 1)
any opposing affidavits and other materials referred to in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(e) and 2) a supporting memorandum of law in strict compliance
with E.D. Mich. LR 7.1. The response to a Rule 56 Motion must
begin with a “Counter-statement of Material Facts” stating which

1

Examples of movant’s separate material factual statements:
1. Plaintiff Jones worked for ABC Corp. in an at-will position from 1999
until his termination in 2005. (DE 34-7 at 10.)
25. ABC Corp. Human Resources Director Smith testified that the only
reason Jones was terminated was repeated tardiness. (DE 34-9 at 32.)

Scheduling Order / Page 4

facts are admitted and which are contested. The paragraph
numbering must correspond to moving party’s Statement of Material
Facts. If any of the moving party’s proffered facts are contested, the
non-moving party must explain the basis for the factual
disagreement, referencing and citing record evidence.2 Any proffered
fact in the movant’s Statement of Material Facts that is not
specifically contested will, for the purpose of the motion, be deemed
admitted. In similar form, the counter- statement may also include
additional facts, disputed or undisputed, that require a denial of the
motion.
Counsel are discouraged from employing elaborate boilerplate
recitations of the summary judgment standard or lengthy string
citations in support of well-established legal principles. Instead,
counsel should focus their analysis on a few well-chosen cases,
preferably recent and from controlling courts. Counsel are
encouraged to supply the Court with copies of their main cases, with
the relevant passages highlighted and tabbed. Where unpublished
opinions or opinions published only in a specialty reporter are cited,
copies of these cases must be submitted with the briefs.
V.

VI.

ORAL ARGUMENT ON MOTIONS. Parties who do not respond to
motions in a timely fashion may not be permitted to argue before the
Court during oral argument.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR PRO SE LITIGANTS.
a.

2

There is a federal pro se legal assistance clinic operated in the
Courthouse by the University of Detroit-Mercy Law School.
To determine if you are eligible for assistance, you may contact

Examples of non-movant’s corresponding factual statements:
1. Plaintiff admits that he worked for ABC Corp. in an at-will position, but
the commencement of employment was in 1997. (DE 34-7 at 12.)
25. Plaintiff admits that Human Resources Director Smith testified at page 5
that Jones was terminated for tardiness, however Smith also agreed that he
said in an email to ABC Corp. Vice President Brown that Jones should
“move out” since he was “getting along in years.” (DE 34-9 at 14.)
Scheduling Order / Page 5

the Federal Pro Se Legal Assistance Clinic at [phone] or
at [e-mail].

Dated:

b.

Neither party is allowed to engage in ex parte communication
with Judge Patti or his staff. This means that every time the
parties engage with Judge Patti or his staff, it must be done by
filing documents in the ECF system or by submitting the
documents to the Clerk’s Office. Judge Patti will not accept
letters or other documents that have not either been filed in the
ECF system or submitted to the Clerk’s Office.

c.

Along the same lines, parties should generally not call
chambers, unless the other party is also on the line.

d.

Parties should ONLY come to Judge Patti’s chambers when
there is a scheduled event. You will receive notice of scheduled
events in the ECF system or through regular mail. Judge Patti
will not hold unscheduled meetings or conferences.

e.

No one in the courthouse can provide you with legal advice,
including Judge Patti, his staff, Clerk’s Office staff, or another
party’s attorney. If you need the assistance of an attorney, you
must retain one on your own.

f.

You are required to follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the Eastern District of Michigan Local Rules throughout
the litigation process. The rules, and additional help for pro se
litigants, can be accessed online via
https://www.mied.uscourts.gov/index.cfm?pageFunction=proSe
.

May 8, 2024

_____________________
ANTHONY P. PATTI
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Scheduling Order / Page 6