Opinion
21-11701
11-29-2022
Thomas L. Ludington United States District Judge
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF No. 12)
Curtis Ivy, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge
The defendants moved to compel Plaintiff to respond to discovery requests on July 20, 2022. (ECF No. 12). According to Defendants, they served discovery requests on Plaintiff on May 11, 2022, but as of the date of the motion, Plaintiff had not responded to the requests. The Court ordered Plaintiff to respond to that motion on or before September 1, 2022. (ECF No. 13). As of October 12, 2022, Plaintiff had not responded, so the Court ordered him to show cause why the Court should not grant the motion to compel for failure to respond. (ECF No. 14). The Court warned that failure to respond could result in an Order granting the motion. Plaintiff's response to the Order to Show Cause is due on or before November 4, 2022.
To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the Order to Show Cause. Thus, the motion to compel is GRANTED. If he has not done so already, Plaintiff must mail his discovery responses to Defendants on or before December 19, 2022. Failure to obey this Order and participate in discovery could result in sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(A) or dismissal of the case for failure to prosecute under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) .
IT IS SO ORDERED.
The parties here may object to and seek review of this Order, but are required to file any objections within 14 days of service as provided for in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72.1(d). A party may not assign as error any defect in this Order to which timely objection was not made. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). Any objections are required to specify the part of the Order to which the party objects and state the basis of the objection. When an objection is filed to a magistrate judge's ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the ruling remains in effect unless it is stayed by the magistrate judge or a district judge. E.D. Mich. Local Rule 72.2.