Lovill v. Torres et al

Filing 33

ORDER striking 32 Motion for appointment of person to take Deposition. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 10/24/2024. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(mdp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
STATESVILLE DIVISION
5:23-cv-00148-GCM
CHRISTOPHER M. LOVILL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
FNU TORRES, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff’s unsigned “Motion for appointment of
person to take Deposition.” [Doc. 32].
Pro se Plaintiff Christopher M. Lovill (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner of the State of North
Carolina currently incarcerated at Alexander Correctional Institution (“Alexander”) in
Taylorsville, North Carolina. On September 18, 2023, Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants FNU Torres and FNU Trivette. [Doc. 1]. Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment excessive force claim passed initial review. [Doc. 8]. Defendants answered
Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 21], and on March 8, 2024, the Court entered a Pretrial Order and
Case Management Plan, setting the discovery deadline as July 5, 2024 [Doc. 22]. On
Defendants’ motions, the Court has twice extended the discovery and dispositive motions
deadlines in this case. [Docs. 25, 27; 6/24/2024 & 7/29/2024 Text Orders]. The extended
discovery deadline in this case expired on October 4, 2024. [See 7/29/2024 Text Order].
Now pending is Plaintiff’s motion for the Court to appoint someone to conduct a
deposition in this matter, which he dated October 15, 2024. [Doc. 32]. Plaintiff asks the Court
to appoint “FNU Tucker,” a notary public employed at Alexander, to take the deposition of

Plaintiff’s physical therapist, Nicole Ford. [Id. at 1]. Plaintiff states that Ms. Tucker has no
interest in this action and that the parties have stipulated pursuant to Rule 29 that she may take
the requested deposition. [Id.]. Plaintiff submits a list of seven questions for the deposition,
including questions regarding the cause of Plaintiff’s injuries, Plaintiff’s pain level, and certain
aspects of Plaintiff’s care and treatment. [Id. at 2-3].
The Court will strike Plaintiff’s improper, unsigned motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a);
Doc. 19 at 2 (cautioning Plaintiff that further improper filings in this matter may be summarily
stricken). Moreover, the deadline to conduct discovery in this matter has expired and Plaintiff
failed to move to extend the scheduling order deadlines in this case. The Court, therefore, would
have denied Plaintiff’s motion in any event.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion [Doc. 32] is hereby
STRICKEN from the record in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: October 24, 2024

2