Filed: Aug. 18, 2015
Latest Update: Aug. 18, 2015
Summary: ORDER J. RANDAL HALL , District Judge . On August 17, 2015, the Court held a pre-trial conference to address consolidation of the parties' proposed pre-trial orders and all pending motions, including Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for failure to file a proper and complete proposed pre-trial order (Doc. 27), Plaintiff's first Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 32), and Plaintiff's second Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendant's Motio
Summary: ORDER J. RANDAL HALL , District Judge . On August 17, 2015, the Court held a pre-trial conference to address consolidation of the parties' proposed pre-trial orders and all pending motions, including Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for failure to file a proper and complete proposed pre-trial order (Doc. 27), Plaintiff's first Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 32), and Plaintiff's second Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendant's Motion..
More
ORDER
J. RANDAL HALL, District Judge.
On August 17, 2015, the Court held a pre-trial conference to address consolidation of the parties' proposed pre-trial orders and all pending motions, including Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for failure to file a proper and complete proposed pre-trial order (Doc. 27), Plaintiff's first Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 32), and Plaintiff's second Motion for Summary Judgment and Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 36). After fully considering the parties' submissions and arguments made at the hearing, the Court:
1. orally DENIED Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 27) given Plaintiff's pro se status, his clear effort at compliance, and his supplemental or revised proposed pre-trial order (Doc. 43) that cured many of Defendant's perceived defects; and
2. orally DENIED as untimely Plaintiff's Motions for Summary Judgment. (Docs. 32 & 36.)
In accordance with the reasons stated here and in the record, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to TERMINATE Documents 27, 32, and 36.
The Court further acknowledges that Plaintiff requests "[t]hat this case be continued until the Defendant turns over the investigative reports whereas all relevant potential witnesses can be listed and properly called to court." (Doc. 43 at 4.) He also indicates that Defendant has failed to provide a number of documents, including, inter alia, witness statements, internal affairs reports, pictures, and disciplinary records. (Id.)
On August 11, 2015, the United States Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff's Motion for Order for Production of Documents, which addressed the same categories of evidentiary materials (see Doc. 28 at 2). (Doc. 35.) This Court thus DENIES Plaintiff's renewed request for production of documents, as presented in the revised pretrial order proposal (Doc. 43 at 4), because the Court finds no grounds — and Plaintiff has presented none — to reconsider or disturb the Magistrate Judge's reasoned ruling.
Furthermore, notwithstanding his denial of Plaintiff's motion to compel, the Magistrate Judge required Defendant to provide Plaintiff with a complete set of all exhibits upon his arrival at the courthouse for the pre-trial conference (Doc. 35), which Defendant did. This Court further agreed to provide Plaintiff with access to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and accommodate other reasonable requests for legal resources on the day of trial. For these reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's request for a continuance.
