Bacon v. Roger et al

Filing 54

ORDER that Plaintiffs Motion for Discovery Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b)(2) in Order to Support the Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendant David Rogers Motion to Dismiss/Summary Judgment 20 is DENIED. Defendant Rogers Motion to Stay Discovery 27 is DENIED as moot. In light of this Courts prior Order granting Defendants Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 8/16/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

***

5

PERCY LAVAE BACON,
Plaintiff,

6
7

vs.

8

DAVID ROGER, et al.,

9

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-CV-00900-KJD-GWF
ORDER

10
11

The Court having read and considered Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery

12

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b)(2) in Order to Support the Plaintiff’s Opposition to

13

the Defendant David Roger’s Motion to Dismiss/Summary Judgment (Doc. #20)

14

filed July 7, 2011, Defendant Roger’s Opposition thereto and Counter-Motion for

15

Stay of Discovery (Doc. #27) filed July 21, 2011, and Plaintiff’s Reply (Doc. #35)

16

filed July 29, 2011, and good cause appearing,

17

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery Pursuant to Fed.

18

R. Civ. P. 56(b)(2) in Order to Support the Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant David

19

Roger’s Motion to Dismiss/Summary Judgment (Doc. #20) is DENIED.

20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Roger’s Motion to Stay

21

Discovery (#27) is DENIED as moot. In light of this Court’s prior Order granting

22

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

23
24

DATED: August 16, 2011.

25
26

PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge