COATES v. JURADO, 12-15529. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20150528b38
Visitors: 13
Filed: May 27, 2015
Latest Update: May 27, 2015
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE [R. 154] ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Emanuel Coates ("Coates"), a pro se prisoner, alleges that Defendants Jemer Jurado, N.P. ("Jurado"), and Corizon Health, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") 1 were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eight Amendment by failing to provide him with a replacement hearing aid. [R. 52]. The Honorable Laurie J. Michelson referred the case to this Court to
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE [R. 154] ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Emanuel Coates ("Coates"), a pro se prisoner, alleges that Defendants Jemer Jurado, N.P. ("Jurado"), and Corizon Health, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") 1 were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eight Amendment by failing to provide him with a replacement hearing aid. [R. 52]. The Honorable Laurie J. Michelson referred the case to this Court to ..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE [R. 154]
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Emanuel Coates ("Coates"), a pro se prisoner, alleges that Defendants Jemer Jurado, N.P. ("Jurado"), and Corizon Health, Inc. (collectively "Defendants")1 were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eight Amendment by failing to provide him with a replacement hearing aid. [R. 52]. The Honorable Laurie J. Michelson referred the case to this Court to resolve all pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). On January 2, 2015, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. [R. 125]. Before the Court is Coates's motion to strike Defendants' motion for summary judgment. [R. 154].
Coates argues that the Court should strike Defendants' motion for summary judgment as being untimely because dispositive motions were originally due May 7, 2014. The Court disagrees. As explained previously, the delay here was caused by Coates's failure to timely produce relevant discovery. [R. 133, PgID 2019-23]. As a result of Coates's conduct, the Court extended discovery for Defendants and extended the deadline for filing dispositive motions until April 24, 2015. [Id., PgID 2022-23]. Therefore, Defendants' motion for summary judgment was timely, and Coates's motion to strike [R. 154] is DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Coates also named Subrina Aiken, R.N., as a defendant; however, the Court dismissed her from this action on September 25, 2013. [See R. 59].
Source: Leagle
