Douty v. Rubenstein et al
Filing
162
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION dismissing as moot plaintiff's 98 OBJECTIONS to Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort's 91 Order. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 8/7/2015. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (tmh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
FRED D. DOUTY,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 2:13-32832
JIM RUBENSTEIN, Commissioner,
W. Va. Division of Corrections, and
DAVID BALLARD, Warden,
Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, and
PAUL PERRY, Associate Warden of Security,
Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, and
RONNIE WILLIAMS, Captain,
Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, and
DANIEL HAHN, Lieutenant,
Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, and
ANDREW HUDSON, Corporal,
Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, and
JOSHUA HYPES, Correctional Officer,
Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, and
CHRIS HESS, Corporal,
Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, and
NICHOLAS BOYCHUCK, Correctional Officer,
Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, and
SERGEANT JOE WIMMER, Sergeant,
Mt. Olive Correctional Complex,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending is plaintiff Fred Douty’s appeal of an order
entered by the United States Magistrate Judge on March 20, 2015,
filed April 6, 2015.
The April 6, 2015, appeal contends that defendants
failed to respond to plaintiff’s first set of interrogatories
and second request for production of documents.
(Appeal at 2).
On May 11, 2015, the magistrate judge entered an order directing
that defendants serve anew upon plaintiff their responses to
Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and Second Request for
Production of Documents.
The production order moots plaintiff’s
appeal.
It is, accordingly, ORDERED that the appeal be, and
hereby is, dismissed as moot.
The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this
written opinion and order to all counsel of record and any
unrepresented parties.
DATED:
August 7, 2015
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?