LaKemper v. Solomon et al

Filing 83

ORDER denying 82 Motion for Default Judgment. Defendants shall submit a memorandum addressing Plaintiff's arguments in various motions regarding discovery with (20) days. Signed by Chief Judge Frank D. Whitney on 12/7/2018. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.) (tmg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:17-cv-73-FDW
COBEY LAKEMPER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
)
GEORGE T. SOLOMON, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s “Motion for Default Judgment against
Defendants For Failure to Comply with Court’s Order to File Brief in Response to Plaintiff’s
Motions,” (Doc. No. 82).
The Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. Nevertheless, Plaintiff is
correct that Defendants failed to comply with the Court’s Order dated August 1, 2018. See (Doc
No. 52). Therefore, before the Court rules on Defendants’ pending summary judgment motion,
the Court will require Defendants to file a brief addressing Plaintiff’s contention, filed in his
various pending motions (particularly Doc. Nos. 51 and 62), that Defendants have not complied
properly with his discovery requests. This Court will not rule on the pending summary judgment
motion until the Court is satisfied that Defendants have complied with Plaintiff’s right in this
action to obtain relevant discovery that is not otherwise protected or privileged.
Finally, the Court notes that the pro se Plaintiff has inundated the Court and Defendants
in this action with a multitude of motions, most of which have been denied or have not assisted
in the adjudication of this action. Now that discovery has ended, and the summary judgment

motion is pending, the Court advises Plaintiff that any further motions will likely only delay the
adjudication of this action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s “Motion for Default Judgment against
Defendants for Failure to Comply with Court’s Order to File Brief in Response to Plaintiff’s
Motions,” (Doc. No. 82), is DENIED. It is further ordered that, within twenty days, Defendants
shall submit a memorandum to this Court succinctly addressing Plaintiff’s arguments in his
various motions regarding discovery, in which he contends that Defendants have not adequately
complied with his discovery requests in this action.

Signed: December 7, 2018