Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Shelby v. Oaks, 4:17-cv-00821-JAR. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri Number: infdco20180405a70 Visitors: 4
Filed: Apr. 04, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 04, 2018
Summary: MEMORANDUM & ORDER JOHN A. ROSS , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Jimmy DeWayne Shelby's motion to consolidate cases (Doc. No. 24), motion for entry of default against Defendant Shannon Oaks (Doc. No. 25), and motion to object and disqualify (Doc. No. 26). Plaintiff first seeks to consolidate this action with another action that he filed on January 29, 2018, styled Shelby v. Corizon Health Care, 4:18-cv-164-PLC. However, that case was dismissed with prej
More

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Jimmy DeWayne Shelby's motion to consolidate cases (Doc. No. 24), motion for entry of default against Defendant Shannon Oaks (Doc. No. 25), and motion to object and disqualify (Doc. No. 26).

Plaintiff first seeks to consolidate this action with another action that he filed on January 29, 2018, styled Shelby v. Corizon Health Care, 4:18-cv-164-PLC. However, that case was dismissed with prejudice on March 23, 2018. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion will be denied as moot.

Plaintiff also asks the Court to enter default judgment against Defendant Shannon Oaks (Doc. Nos. 25) and an order disqualifying Defendant's initial disclosures (Doc. No. 26). The Court has reviewed Defendant's disclosures and finds that no violation of the case management order has occurred. The Court notes, however, that because Plaintiff is confined, Defendant's offer to allow Plaintiff to inspect the documents does not satisfy the requirements of the case management order. Therefore, the Court will order Defendant to identify another way to provide copies of the documents to Plaintiff.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to consolidate cases (Doc. No. 24) is DENIED as moot.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for entry of default against Defendant Shannon Oaks (Doc. No. 25) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to object and disqualify (Doc. No. 26) is DENIED.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Defendant will identify another way for Plaintiff to inspect the documents identified in Defendant's disclosures.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer