Watson v. Jamsen et al

Filing 47

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S 30 Motion to Defer Summary Judgment - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (CCie)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DERRYL WATSON, Plaintiff, No. 16-13770 v. District Judge Linda V. Parker Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen CHARLES JAMSEN, ET AL., Defendants. / ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Defer Summary Judgment [Doc. #30], in which he asks to defer ruling on Defendant McCarthy’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. #21] until he has had the opportunity for more discovery. I denied a similar motion [Doc. #10] in which he sought to defer a summary judgment motion filed by Defendant Landfair. Both summary judgment motions were based on Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies, as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and neither of which required additional discovery. However, I did grant Plaintiff additional time to respond to Defendant McCarthy’s motion. See Doc. #32. In addition, both Landfair and McCarthy have been dismissed without prejudice, based on the exhaustion issue. Therefore, Plaintiff’s present motion [Doc. #30] is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 6, 2017 s/R. Steven Whalen R. STEVEN WHALEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify on December 6, 2017 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to non-registered ECF participants on December 6, 2017. s/Carolyn M. Ciesla Case Manager for the Honorable R. Steven Whalen

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?