Filed: Dec. 07, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 07, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, Sticotti Demonce Crawford, proceeds in this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action pro se and in forma pauperis. According to Plaintiff's address of record, he is currently not incarcerated. Currently before the Court is Defendant Brazell's First Motion to Compel (ECF. No. 22), and a Motion to Compel by Defendants Harris and Perry. ECF No. 24. On November 22, 2015 Defendant Brazell filed a Motion to Compel. In his Motion, Defendant Brazell s
Summary: ORDER JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, Sticotti Demonce Crawford, proceeds in this 42 U.S.C. 1983 action pro se and in forma pauperis. According to Plaintiff's address of record, he is currently not incarcerated. Currently before the Court is Defendant Brazell's First Motion to Compel (ECF. No. 22), and a Motion to Compel by Defendants Harris and Perry. ECF No. 24. On November 22, 2015 Defendant Brazell filed a Motion to Compel. In his Motion, Defendant Brazell st..
More
ORDER
JAMES R. MARSCHEWSKI, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff, Sticotti Demonce Crawford, proceeds in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action pro se and in forma pauperis. According to Plaintiff's address of record, he is currently not incarcerated. Currently before the Court is Defendant Brazell's First Motion to Compel (ECF. No. 22), and a Motion to Compel by Defendants Harris and Perry. ECF No. 24.
On November 22, 2015 Defendant Brazell filed a Motion to Compel. In his Motion, Defendant Brazell states he first served propounded Interrogatories and Discovery Requests, including a Medical Authorization, to Plaintiff on April 21, 2015. Plaintiff did not respond. On November 5, 2015, Defendant sent a second request asking Plaintiff to respond to the discovery request and informing Plaintiff, if he failed to respond, Defendant would file a motion to compel. Plaintiff again failed to respond. ECF No. 22.
On December 3, 2015, Defendants Harris and Perry filed a Motion to Compel. In their Motion, they state they served Plaintiff with discovery requests, including a Medical Authorization, on or about October 14, 2015. Plaintiff did not respond. On November 20, 2015, Defendants sent a second request asking Plaintiff to respond to the discovery request and informing Plaintiff, if he failed to respond, Defendants would file a motion to compel. Plaintiff again failed to respond. ECF No. 24.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff is afforded thirty (30) days to respond to discovery requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(2) & 34(b)(2)(A). Plaintiff did not request an extension of time to respond to Defendants' discovery requests. Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to respond in the time provided by law.
Accordingly, Defendant Brazell's First Motion to Compel (ECF. No. 22), and the Motion to Compel by Defendants Harris and Perry (ECF No. 24) are GRANTED. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to provide Defendants with the required responses to the discovery requests by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, January 11, 2016. Plaintiff is advised that failure to comply with this Order may result in the dismissal of this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
