Johnson v. NC Department of Public Safety/Division of Prisons

Filing 61

ORDER denying Pltf's 59 Motion for Prayer for Relief; granting Defts' 60 Motion for Extension of Time of Scheduling Order Deadlines to file dispositive motions. (Dispositive Motions due by 11/26/2018.) Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 9/18/2018. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(ejb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:16-cv-267-FDW
WILEY DALLAS JOHNSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT )
OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Prayer for Relief, (Doc. No.
59), and Motion of Defendants Mike Ball, Carolyn Buchanan, Bret Bullis, James Duckworth, Chad
Green, David W. Guice, Cindy Haynes, Norma Melton, FNU Pendland, Frank L. Perry, Sandra
Pittman, FNU Remfro, Mike Slagle, Paula Y. Smith, FNU Stroupe, and James Vaughn, for a 60day extension of time in which to file dispositive motions, (Doc. No. 60).
In Plaintiff’s Motion for Prayer for Relief, he alleges that the records show that the
Defendants were negligent and deliberately indifferent, that Plaintiff’s right to pursue the
grievance procedure was hindered, that the Court has failed to adequately inform him how to
proceed pro se, and that he should be released from prison while he is awaiting a liver transplant.
Liberally construing Plaintiff’s Motion for Prayer for Relief, it appears that he may be
seeking summary judgment. His motion will be denied. Summary judgment shall be granted “if
the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled
to judgment as a matter of law.” Fec. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A factual dispute is genuine “if the evidence
is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty

1

Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A fact is material only if it might affect the outcome of
the suit under governing law. Id. Plaintiff’s restatement of his allegations without any supporting
documentation fails to demonstrate that no genuine dispute of material fact exists for trial and that
he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Further, his claim for immediate release is not
cognizable in this § 1983 action.
Defendants seek an extension of the dispositive motion deadline. For good cause shown,
the Defendants’ Motion to extend the time for filing dispositive motions will be granted until
November 26, 2018. Absent extraordinary circumstances, further extensions of the dispositive
motion deadline will not be granted.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
1) Plaintiff’s Motion for Prayer for Relief, (Doc. No. 59), is DENIED.
2) Defendants’ Motion to extend the time for filing dispositive motions, (Doc. No. 60), is
GRANTED until November 26, 2018. Absent extraordinary circumstances, further
extensions of the dispositive motion deadline will not be granted.

Signed: September 18, 2018

2