Nelson v. Willis et al

Filing 29

ORDER: Telephone Conference held on 7/27/2011. David Lyons, counsel for plaintiff, participated in this call but defendant Willis did not participate. Defendant Willis did not telephone the Court in order to take part in the telephone conference, and counsel for plaintiff stated that he also lacked a telephone number for him. Counsel for plaintiff stated that he probably would be filing a motion to continue the trial date because of uncertainties about the status of the related criminal prosecution of defendant Willis for the acts giving rise to this action. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Bryant on 7/27/11. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(dt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
JACINTA NELSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
DARIUS WILLIS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 3:10-0764
Judge Nixon/Bryant
Jury Demand

O R D E R
The undersigned Magistrate Judge conducted a telephone
conference in this case on Wednesday, July 27, 2011.

David Lyons,

counsel for plaintiff, participated in this call but defendant
Willis did not participate.

The Clerk has no telephone number of

record for defendant Willis, and the undersigned Magistrate Judge,
after

a

search

through

several

telephone

directories,

unsuccessful in locating a telephone number for him.

was

According to

the record, defendant Willis received a copy of the order setting
today’s telephone conference on Friday, July 22, 2011 (Docket Entry
No. 28).

Nevertheless, defendant Willis did not telephone the

Court in order to take part in the telephone conference, and
counsel for plaintiff stated that he also lacked a telephone number
for him.
The undersigned Magistrate Judge reminded counsel for
plaintiff that this case is currently set for trial before Senior
Judge Nixon on August 23, 2011, with the final pretrial conference
scheduled for August 12, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. (Docket Entry No. 16).

No motions are currently pending, and all deadlines in the case
management order have expired.
Counsel for plaintiff stated that he probably would be
filing a motion to continue the trial date because of uncertainties
about the status of the related criminal prosecution of defendant
Willis for the acts giving rise to this action. The Court informed
counsel that a motion to continue the trial date, if filed, would
be ruled upon by the District Judge.
It is so ORDERED.
s/ John S. Bryant
JOHN S. BRYANT
United States Magistrate Judge