Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

STEEDLEY v. McBRIDE, 10-215-GMS. (2014)

Court: District Court, D. Delaware Number: infdco20140404923 Visitors: 13
Filed: Mar. 21, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 21, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER GREGORY M. SLEET, District Judge. At Wilmington, this 21 st of March, 2014, having considered the plaintiff's motion for discovery, requests for default or sanctions, and motion for an extension of time (D.I. 63, 76, 85, 86); I. BACKGROUND The plaintiff, Russell Steedley ("Steedley"), an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 raising medical needs claims. (D.I. 2.) He appears prose and was gran
More

MEMORANDUM ORDER

GREGORY M. SLEET, District Judge.

At Wilmington, this 21st of March, 2014, having considered the plaintiff's motion for discovery, requests for default or sanctions, and motion for an extension of time (D.I. 63, 76, 85, 86);

I. BACKGROUND

The plaintiff, Russell Steedley ("Steedley"), an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center, Smyrna, Delaware, filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 raising medical needs claims. (D.I. 2.) He appears prose and was granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (D.I. 9.)

II. DISCOVERY

Steedley seeks discovery to aid in the service of process of the defendants James McBride ("McBride") and Richard Kerney ("Kerney"). (D.I. 63.) Addresses have been provided and McBride and Kerney have been served. Therefore, the motion will be denied as moot.

III. REQUESTS FOR DEFAULT AND/OR FOR SANCTIONS

Steedley requests default and/or sanctions on the grounds that counsel for Correctional Medical Services failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in effecting service, employed evasive tactics, and failed to provide a signature identifying the attorney who filed an answer and notice of service. The court finds that Steedley has failed to provide any grounds for entry of default or sanctions. Therefore, the court will deny the motions. (D.I. 76, 86.)

IV. EXTENSION OF TIME

Steedley seeks an extension of time to file a response to the defendant's motion to dismiss. (D.I. 85) The court will grant the motion.

V. CONCLUSION

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, as follows:

1. The motion for discovery is denied as moot. (D .I. 63.)

2. The requests for default and/or for sanctions are denied. (D.I. 76, 86.)

3. The motion for an extension of time to file a response to the defendant's motion to dismiss is granted. (D.I. 85.) The plaintiffs response found at D.I. 90 is considered timely filed.

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