Watson, III v. Zeolla et al

Filing 56

ORDER Re-Setting Dates by Which Plaintiff Must Comply With Court's Earlier 53 Order. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HRya)

Case 4:18-cv-10481-MFL-APP ECF No. 56, PageID.334 Filed 01/19/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
CHARLES EARL WATSON, III,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 18-cv-10481
Hon. Matthew F. Leitman

v.
W. ZEOLLA, et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________________________________________/
ORDER RE-SETTING DATES BY WHICH PLAINTIFF
MUST COMPLY WITH COURT’S EARLIER ORDER (ECF No. 53)
On October 29, 2021, this Court entered an order in which it granted (1)
Defendants’ amended motion to compel discovery (ECF No. 49) and (2) Plaintiff
Charles Earl Watson, III’s counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel (ECF No. 51).
(See Order, ECF No. 53.) As part of that order, the Court required Watson to do the
following: (1) notify the Court as to whether he intended to proceed pro se or to
retain new counsel by not later than December 6, 2021; and (2) provide full
responses to the discovery requests that were the subject of Defendants’ amended
motion to compel discovery by not later than January 7, 2022. (See id., PageID.323.)
The Court explained that a failure to comply with either of these requirements would
render Watson’s action subject to dismissal. (See id.) Finally, the Court ordered that
Watson’s now-terminated counsel serve the Court’s order on Watson “promptly.”
(Id.)
1

Case 4:18-cv-10481-MFL-APP ECF No. 56, PageID.335 Filed 01/19/22 Page 2 of 2

Unfortunately, the Court’s order was not sent to Watson until January 18,
2022. (See Certificate of Service, ECF No. 55.) By that point, the deadlines laid out
for Watson in the order had passed.
Because Watson did not receive prompt notice of these deadlines, the Court
concludes it will re-set these deadlines in order to provide Watson with a full
opportunity to comply its earlier order. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as
follows:
1. By not later than March 7, 2022, Watson shall notify the Court in writing that
he intends to proceed pro se or shall have new counsel file a written
appearance on his behalf on the docket. If Watson fails to provide such notice
or fails to have new counsel file a written appearance on his behalf, as required
herein, this action shall be subject to dismissal.
2. By not later than April 6, 2022, Watson shall provide full responses to the
discovery requests that are the subject of Defendants’ amended motion to
compel (ECF No. 49). If Watson fails to provide full responses to these
discovery requests as required herein, this action shall be subject to dismissal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Matthew F. Leitman
MATTHEW F. LEITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: January 19, 2022
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the
parties and/or counsel of record on January 19, 2022, by electronic means and/or
ordinary mail.
s/Holly A. Ryan
Case Manager
[phone]
2