Hubbert v. Washington et al

Filing 52

ORDER denying 48 Motion to Compel; granting 50 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply( Responses due by 2/16/2016). Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou on 1/29/2016. (slt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
HASSIN HUBBERT,
Plaintiff,
v.
G. K. WASHINGTON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 7:14-cv-00530

ORDER
By:

Hon. Robert S. Ballou
United States Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the court upon pro se plaintiff Hassin Hubbert’s motion to compel
discovery and motion for an extension of time to review the requested discovery before responding
to defendants’ motion for summary judgment. A protective order based on qualified immunity
was already entered in this case before Plaintiff filed the motion to compel, and none of Plaintiff’s
discovery requests warrant amending the protective order to permit discovery before the court
resolves the issue of qualified immunity. See, e.g., Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 646 n.6
(1987); Holland ex rel. Overdorff v. Harrington, 268 F.3d 1179, 1185 (10th Cir. 2001).
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED, and Plaintiff’s motion for an extension is
GRANTED to the extent he has fourteen days from the entry of this order, to respond to
defendants’ motion for summary judgment.
The Clerk shall send copies of this Order to the parties.
It is so ORDERED.
Enter: January 29, 2016

/s/ Robert S. Ballou
Robert S. Ballou
United States Magistrate Judge