Hunt v. Houston et al

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying the Plaintiff's 36 Motion to Compel. Defendant's 37 Objection is granted. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ROBERT E. HUNT,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT HOUSTON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:11CV3086

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, filed on March
6, 2012. (Filing No. 36.) As set forth in the Order Setting Schedule for Progression
of Case (the “Progression Order”), the deadline for filing a motion to compel was
January 12, 2012. (Filing No. 27.) Defendants have filed their Motion for Summary
Judgment (filing no. 28) and Plaintiff filed his Response to that Motion. (Filing No.
31.)

Although Plaintiff claims that he was unaware of the Progression Order

deadlines (filing no. 38), he does not assert that the requested discovery is necessary
for him to fully respond to the pending Motion for Summary Judgment. (Filing No.
36.) Indeed, Plaintiff has already done so.
In the event that the court denies the Motion for Summary Judgment, or
otherwise deems the requested discovery necessary, Plaintiff may renew his Motion
to Compel. However, at this stage of the proceedings and on the record currently
before the court, the Motion to Compel is denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (filing no.
36) is denied. Defendants’ Objection (filing no. 37) is granted.
DATED this 2nd day of March, 2012.

BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
2