Gatheright v. Clark et al

Filing 80

ORDER denying 58 Plaintiff's "Motion for Supplement." Signed by Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander on 7/8/15. (mhf)

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

LESLY GATHERIGHT,

V.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-111-SA-SAA

NORMAN CLARK, et al.,

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Pro se plaintiff Lesly Gatheright has filed several motions which all stem from an attempt
to have this court compel non-parties to respond to written discovery. Docket 47, 49, 52, 53, 58.
Plaintiff’s first three motions to compel, Docket 47, 52 and 53, were denied by this court because
they sought to force non-parties to answer discovery in a manner that was improper under Rule
31 of the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. In much the same fashion, plaintiff’s “Motion
for Supplement,” attempts to supplement plaintiff’s first motion to compel [Docket 47] to add
additional facts. However, the motions themselves, with or without the supplemental
information, remain deficient under Rule 31. As a consequence, it is
ORDERED
that plaintiff’s “Motion for Supplement,” Docket 58, is DENIED.
This, the 8th day of July 2015.

__/s/ S. Allan Alexander______________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE