Gatheright v. Clark et al

Filing 70

ORDER denying 50 Motion for Second Supplement. Signed by District Judge Sharion Aycock on 3/30/2015. (psk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
OXFORD DIVISION
LESLY GATHERIGHT

PLAINTIFF

V.

CAUSE NO.: 3:12CV111-SA-SAA

NORMAN CLARK, and
NAC FARMS, INC., a/k/a CLARK FARMS

DEFENDANTS

ORDER ON MOTION
Currently pending before the Court is the Plaintiff’s Motion for Second Supplement of
his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. In the course of this case and since he has been
proceeding pro se, Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [31], Motion for
Clarification of Defendant’s Response to the partial summary judgment request [41], Motion for
Clarification of Defendant’s Response [42], a Reply to the Response to those motions [44], and
several supplements to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [45, 50, 51, 59], among other
motions and filings. Prior to his recusal, Judge Mills entered an Order denying the Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment [31], as well as the supplemental motions. The district court stated
explicitly, “It is therefore ordered that plaintiff’s original and amended motions for summary
judgment (as well as related motions) [31-1, 41-1, 59-1, 63-1] are denied.” Not included in that
recitation of denied motions was Plaintiff’s Motion for Second Supplement to Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment [31].

The First Motion to Supplement [41] and the Third Motion to

Supplement [59], filed before and after the pending request to supplement the record
respectively, were clearly reviewed by the court.
The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Second Supplement [50] should have been
included in those motions “related” to the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Court has
reviewed the evidence attached to the motion and is confident that Judge Mills did the same prior

to making the earlier ruling. Regardless of whether the court reviewed it previously or not, the
supplemented evidence would not change the outcome of the Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.
Accordingly, the Motion for Second Supplement [50] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 30th day of March, 2015.
/s/ Sharion Aycock_________
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

2