Stewart v. Skorupa et al

Filing 32

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that Defendant's 31 Objection to Plaintiff's discovery requests is sustained. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ROBERT R. STEWART,
Plaintiff,
v.
DOROTHY SKORUPA, She acted
under the color of law in her official
capacity, Supervisor, PATRICIA
SUE HARTWELL, She acted in the
color of law in her official capacity,
Employment and Training
Coordinator, HOLLY LEWIS, She
acted under the color of law in her
official capacity, Assistant Manager,
Lincoln Parks and Recreation, and
LYNN JOHNSON, He acted under
the colof of law in his official
capacity, Parks and Recreation
Director,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:12CV3184

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s discovery requests (Filing Nos. 26
and 27), and Defendant’s Objection to Plaintiff’s discovery requests (Filing No. 31).
As Plaintiff has already been informed, shortly after he filed this action, the clerk’s
office delivered to him a copy of the court’s General Order Number 2007-12, which
states that “[n]o discovery in pro se civil cases assigned to a district judge shall take
place until . . . a progression order is entered unless permitted by the court.” (Filing
No. 4 at CM/ECF p. 1.) Here, the court has not entered a progression order, and will
not enter one until after it has ruled on Defendant Patricia Sue Hartwell’s Motion to
Dismiss. (See Filing No. 18.) The court will rule on the Motion to Dismiss in its
normal course of business. Accordingly, the court will sustain Defendant’s Objection

to Plaintiff’s discovery requests (Filing No. 31). Plaintiff may not engage in
discovery until the court enters a progression order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Defendant’s Objection to Plaintiff’s
discovery requests (Filing No. 31) is sustained.
DATED this 20th day of June, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
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