Shinault v. Mississippi Department of Corrections et al

Filing 64

ORDER denying 62 Motion to Request Witnessto Request X-Rays; denying 63 Motion to Request Witnessto Request X-Rays. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 11/15/18. (jla)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
GEORGE SHINAULT

PLAINTIFF

V.

NO. 4:17CV177-GHD-JMV

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
Before the court are Plaintiff’s motions (1) to request a witness at his evidentiary hearing,
and (2) to request the presentation of his x-rays. See Docs. #62 & #63. Having fully considered
the motions, the court rules as follows:
Plaintiff has requested that x-ray technician Dewayne Blair be subpoenaed to testify as a
witness for Plaintiff. Doc. #62. The court notes that witness lists were due in this matter on
June 20, 2018. See Doc. #15. The court reminded Plaintiff of this witness deadline in an order
dated April 11, 2018, after Plaintiff unsuccessfully sought to amend his complaint to add Mr.
Blair as a defendant in this action. See Doc. #24. In an order dated June 19, 2018, Plaintiff was
again instructed to “follow the court’s prior instructions regarding how to file the [witness] list
and what to include in it.” Doc. #45. Despite these warnings, Plaintiff failed to thereafter submit
a witness or exhibit list. Therefore, the instant motion [62] is untimely and DENIED. The court
notes, however, that the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) has included
Dewayne Blair as a potential witness in its case. Doc. #47. Accordingly, should this matter
proceed to an evidentiary hearing, it is likely that Plaintiff will have an opportunity to call Mr.
Blair to provide testimony.
Plaintiff has filed a second motion requesting that all of his x-rays be presented to the
court. Doc. #63. The court is uncertain whether Plaintiff makes this request in order to respond
to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, or whether he desires to present the records at any

evidentiary hearing. The court notes that, as with the witness list, Plaintiff’s request for exhibits
is untimely. It also notes that the motions deadline passed in this cause on October 22, 2018. See
Doc. #15. Regardless, the court observes that Plaintiff has been provided his medical and
institutional records, see Doc. #42, and that over 300 pages of his medical records are attached to
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, which he has also been supplied. See Doc. #54-2.
Therefore, it appears that he already has his medical records in his possession and may produce
any of these documents in support of his claims if he chooses to do so. Accordingly, the instant
motion [63] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this 15th day of November, 2018.
s/ Jane M. Virden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2