MasterBrand Cabinets, Inc. v. Stotler

Filing 14

ORDER denying 12 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge David Keesler on 11/21/17. (tob)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-651-RJC-DCK
MASTERBRAND CABINETS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL D. STOTLER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE COURT on “Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration
And/Or Objection To Magistrate’s Order” (Document No. 12) filed November 21, 2017. This
motion 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 and the record, the
undersigned will deny the motion.
By the instant motion, Plaintiff objects to pro se Defendant being allowed thirty (30) days
to respond to Plaintiff’s “Complaint” (Document No. 1). See (Document No. 10). The Complaint
asserts a breach of contract claim and requests that “the Court enter preliminary and permanent
injunctions requiring that Defendant cease working in his current position with Masco.”
(Document No. 1, p.9). Plaintiff, however, has not filed a motion for a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiff now states that it “intends to file a motion for preliminary injunction as soon as possible,
but, . . . needs to conduct limited discovery to establish those facts through admissible evidence.”
(Document No. 12, p.2).
The undersigned has ordered pro se Defendant to file a response to the request for
expedited discovery by November 29, 2017; but will respectfully decline to reverse the decision

to allow the pro se Defendant additional time to respond to the Complaint. See (Document No.
13).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that “Plaintiff’s Motion For Reconsideration And/Or
Objection To Magistrate’s Order” (Document No. 12) is DENIED.

Signed: November 21, 2017

2