Davis v. Mohr et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying as moot 29 Motion for Discovery; denying 30 Motion to Appoint Counsel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp on 1/27/2017. (agm)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
Carlton Davis,
Plaintiff,

Case No.

2:15-cv-2739

v.
Mr. Gary Mohr, et al.,

CHIEF JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.
Magistrate Judge Kemp

Defendants.
ORDER
Plaintiff has filed a motion requesting the appointment of
counsel.

Since this action has not yet progressed to the point

that the Court is able to evaluate the merits of plaintiff's
claim, the motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 30) is denied.
See Mars v. Hanberry, 752 F.2d 254 (6th Cir. l985).
Plaintiff also has filed a motion requesting that defendants
serve their discovery responses on him at his new address.
Defendants have filed a notice representing that they have done
so.

Plaintiff has not challenged this representation.

Consequently, plaintiff’s discovery-related motion (Doc. 29) is
denied as moot.
Any party may, within fourteen days after this Order is
filed, file and serve on the opposing party a motion for
reconsideration by a District Judge.

28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A),

Rule 72(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.; Eastern Division Order No. 91-3, pt.
I., F., 5.

The motion must specifically designate the order or

part in question and the basis for any objection.

Responses to

objections are due fourteen days after objections are filed and
replies by the objecting party are due seven days thereafter.
The District Judge, upon consideration of the motion, shall set
aside any part of this Order found to be clearly erroneous or

contrary to law.
This order is in full force and effect, notwithstanding the
filing of any objections, unless stayed by the Magistrate
Judge or District Judge.

S.D. Ohio L.R. 72.4.

/s/Terence P. Kemp
United States Magistrate Judge

2