Opinion
Civil Action 4:23-CV-00132-RP
03-19-2024
LEE TOMMIE AMERSON PLAINTIFF v. CAPT. ROBERT DUDLEY, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
ROY PERCY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter comes before the Court on the plaintiff's pro se motion to compel Defendants' compliance with the Court's previously entered order regarding discovery. Doc. # 52. The Court directed Defendants to file a response and advise the Court “as to the status of the production of the video recording of the alleged assault-whether such video exists, and, if so, whether the recording has been produced to Plaintiff” and further “whether the quality of the photographs produced is the best available or whether they have the capability to provide better-quality photographs.” See Doc. # 53. Defendants filed their response and advised that “they have been unable to locate a copy of the video referenced by Plaintiff” and opined that “it is likely that the video no longer exists as the assault was never referred to CID.” See Doc. # 56. Defendants further averred that they “have provided all documents and photographs as they exist within the MDOC system” and further that, after conducting additional searches, “the photographs produced are the best and only available photographs in MDOC's possession and MDOC does not have the capability of providing better quality photographs.” Id. Given Defendants' response, the Court finds that no further relief can be ordered. As such, Plaintiff's motion [52] to compel is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.