Bloodworth v. Timmerman-Cooper et al

Filing 111

ORDER denying 93 Motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. The Court grants plaintiff until April 30, 2013 to respond to defendants motions for partial summary judgment, Doc. Nos. 95 , 98 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 4/08/13. (rew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

RONALD BLOODWORTH,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:10-CV-1122
Judge Marbley
Magistrate Judge King

vs.

DEBORA A. TIMMERMAN-COOPER,
WARDEN, et al.
Defendants.

ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, without
prejudice, of the claims asserted against defendants Jennifer A.
Barnes and Angela Sargent.

Doc. No. 107.

The Court receives the

notice as a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41, and GRANTS that
motion.
The claims asserted against defendants Jennifer A. Barnes and
Angela Sargent, who have not been served with service of process, are
DISMISSED without prejudice.
Defendants James Jones, Jennifer Barnes, Dustin Bennett, Felipe
Jimenez, Heidi Ferrell and Angela Sargent have all been dismissed from
this action.

The State of Ohio’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint and

Amended Complaint as to Named Defendants, James Jones, Jennifer
Barnes, Dustin Bennett, Felipe Jimenez, Heidi Ferrell and Angela
Sargent Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), Doc. No. 93, is therefore

1

DENIED as moot.
This matter is also before the Court on plaintiff’s motions
requesting an extension of time until June 30, 2013 to respond to
defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment, Doc. Nos. 95, 98.
Doc. Nos. 109, 110.

The motions for partial summary judgment were

filed on January 31 and February 20, 2013, and plaintiff has already
been granted one extension - until April 22, 2013 - to respond to
those motions.

Order, Doc. No. 106.

Plaintiff argues that a second

extension is necessary because he has limited time to conduct legal
research, he intends to file a Rule 56(d) motion to obtain additional
discovery, and he is drafting a complaint in an unrelated civil
matter.
Plaintiff has not, in the Court’s opinion, justified yet another
two months to respond to the motions for partial summary judgment.
The Court therefore grants plaintiff until April 30, 2013 to respond
to defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment, Doc. Nos. 95, 98.1
There will be no further extension of this date.

April 8, 2013

s/ Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge

1

A Rule 56(d) motion will suspend plaintiff’s obligation to respond to
defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment until the Court rules on the
56(d) motion(s).

2