Fontaine v. City of Charlotte et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying 10 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 5/19/11. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(com)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:11-CV-0131-RJC-DCK
TORNELLO FONTAINE PIERCE EL-BEY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF CHARLOTTE,
)
CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG POLICE
)
DEPARTMENT, T. BOBREK,
)
and JOHN DOE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on Plaintiff’s “Motion To Compel...”
(Document No. 10). This matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §636(b), and immediate review is appropriate. Having carefully considered the motion,
the record, and the applicable authority, the undersigned will deny the motion.
On May 3, 2011, the now pending “Motion To Compel And Dismiss Defendant Motion
Supported With Affidavit” (Document Nos. 10-11) was filed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s filing was
docketed by the Court as both a motion to compel (Document No. 10) and a response to the motion
to dismiss (Document No. 11). “Defendant’s Notice Of Intent Not To File A Response Brief”
(Document No. 16) to the pending “Motion To Compel...” (Document No. 10) was filed May 19,
2011. Defendants contend that the Plaintiff’s “Motion To Compel...” is moot based on the
undersigned’s recent “Memorandum And Recommendation” (Document No. 15) which
recommends that “Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss” (Document No. 9) be granted.
It is the undersigned’s view that the pending “Motion To Compel...” fails to clearly or
persuasively describe the relief it seeks. (Document No. 10). As such, that document is more

logically construed only as a response to “Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss.”

Under the

circumstances, the Court finds that it is in the best interests of judicial economy and case
management to deny Plaintiff’s “Motion To Compel...” without prejudice to re-file, following the
presiding district judge’s ruling on the “Memorandum And Recommendation” (Document No. 15).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion To Compel...” (Document No.
10) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, as described herein.

Signed: May 19, 2011

2