Opinion
5:23-cv-00404-CAR-CHW
07-08-2024
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). Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's second motion to produce documents. (Doc. 19). As explained in the screening recommendation (Doc. 4, p. 10-11) and the order denying his previous request (Doc. 8), discovery will not commence in this action until the remaining defendant, Defendant Ingram, has been served and has answered the complaint. As Defendant Ingram has not yet answered, discovery has not commenced. Plaintiff's motion to produce documents (Doc. 19) is premature and is DENIED.
This motion also included a request for settlement. The Court has no authority to order a settlement.
The docket reflects an attorney appearance for Defendant Ingram (Doc. 18), but it does not show that service was waived or perfected. Therefore, the Court cannot ascertain when Defendant Ingram's answer is due. Defense counsel is DIRECTED to provide a status update within 14 days of this order as to whether Defendant Ingram has waived service.
SO ORDERED.