Opinion
3:07CV00188 JLH/JTR.
April 15, 2008
ORDER
On April 3, 2008, the Court entered an Order acknowledging that a jury trial had been requested and that the parties had not consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. See docket entry #28. Accordingly, the Court imposed discovery and dispositive motion deadlines and mentioned that, if necessary, the case would proceed to a jury trial before the Honorable J. Leon Holmes, United States District Judge. Id.
On April 9, 2008, remaining Defendants Arnold and Cox filed a Response clarifying that former Defendant Houchin, who has been dismissed from this action, was the only party who requested a jury trial. See docket entry #30. Additionally, Defendants Arnold and Cox state that they would like this case to proceed to a non-jury trial before a United States Magistrate Judge. Id.
The Court's records demonstrate that Plaintiff has not consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. All of the parties remaining in the case must consent before the case can proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Additionally, Plaintiff must be given the opportunity to state whether he was relying on Defendant Houchin's demand for a jury trial or whether he wishes to have this case scheduled for a non-jury trial. Accordingly, the Court will give Plaintiff thirty days to file a Statement indicating whether he: (1) would like a jury trial; and/or (2) wishes to consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
1. The April 3, 2008 Order establishing discovery and dispositive motion deadlines (docket entry #28) is VACATED.
2. Plaintiff shall have thirty days from the entry of this Order to file a Statement containing the information specified herein.
3. Plaintiff is reminded that the failure to timely and properly respond to this Order will result in the dismissal of this action, without prejudice, pursuant to Local Rule 5.5(c)(2).