Opinion
5:23-cv-00404-CAR-CHW
02-14-2024
SHAKEEM ANTONIO BROXTON, Plaintiff, v. MACON STATE PRISON, et al., Defendants.
Proceedings Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Before the U.S. Magistrate Judge
ORDER
Charles H. Weigle, United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Shakeem Broxton, pro se, filed this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, regarding his incarceration at Macon State Prison. (Doc. 1). Following screening of his complaint (Doc. 4), but prior to the order adopting the screening recommendation (Doc. 7), Plaintiff filed a motion to produce documents. (Doc. 6). As explained in the screening recommendation (Doc. 4, p. 10-11), discovery will not commence in this action until the remaining defendant, Sgt. Breanna Ingram, is served and answers the complaint. As Defendant Ingram has not yet been served, discovery has not commenced. Plaintiff's motion to produce documents (Doc. 6) is premature and is DENIED.
The docket does not reflect that service was issued for Defendant Ingram. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to issue the appropriate service paperwork for Defendant Ingram. See (Doc. 4, p. 9).
SO ORDERED.