Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

MORRIS v. MORALES, CV 315-004. (2015)

Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia Number: infdco20150723823 Visitors: 2
Filed: Jul. 22, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 22, 2015
Summary: ORDER BRIAN K. EPPS , Magistrate Judge . The above-captioned matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's (1) "Motion for Conclusion of Stay and Schedule for Discovery," (2) "Motion in Support of Scheduling for Discovery," and (3) motion for a copy of the Middle District of Georgia's January 14, 2015 Order. (Doc. nos. 97, 100, 101.) In Plaintiff's "Motion in Support of Scheduling for Discovery," he also states he has never received a copy of Defendants' motion to dismiss and requests a copy of
More

ORDER

The above-captioned matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's (1) "Motion for Conclusion of Stay and Schedule for Discovery," (2) "Motion in Support of Scheduling for Discovery," and (3) motion for a copy of the Middle District of Georgia's January 14, 2015 Order. (Doc. nos. 97, 100, 101.) In Plaintiff's "Motion in Support of Scheduling for Discovery," he also states he has never received a copy of Defendants' motion to dismiss and requests a copy of the motion. (See doc. no. 101, 103.)

The Court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff's motion for a copy of the Middle District's January 14th Order because Defendants state and Plaintiff concedes that the Middle District has directed the Clerk to send Plaintiff another copy of the Order. (See doc. nos. 102, 103.)

The Court DENIES for two reasons Plaintiff's motions requesting this Court (1) end the stay of discovery this Court granted on February 18, 2015 pending resolution of Defendants' motion to dismiss, and (2) send him a copy of Defendants' motion. (See doc. no. 93.) First, Plaintiff does not state that he needs to conduct discovery to respond to Defendants' motion to dismiss and references grievances he has already filed with this Court in opposition of the motion to dismiss. (See doc. nos. 97, 100.) Second, this Court has already re-served a copy of Defendants' motion to dismiss on Plaintiff. (See doc. no. 95, p. 2.) Therefore, his assertion that he has never received a copy of the motion to dismiss is simply incorrect.

SO ORDERED.

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