From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Pennington

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
Aug 3, 2010
4:10CV00147SWW/JTK (E.D. Ark. Aug. 3, 2010)

Opinion

4:10CV00147SWW/JTK.

August 3, 2010


ORDER


This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. No. 29). Defendants have filed a response to the motion (Doc. No. 30).

In his motion, plaintiff states, "would like for the courts to allow me a motion to compel against the defendants . . . on the last (2) two forms that I've sent to the Docoments (sic) 16-1-3 — and all last actions taken." In their response, defendants state they are unclear about plaintiff's request in his motion, stating document 16 is defendants' answer to the complaint, and does not require a further response from defendants. Furthermore, defendants state they have responded to all required pleadings.

The Court is unclear about the plaintiff's request, and finds no pleadings in which a response is required from defendants. In addition, the Court does not find any discovery requests pending, and plaintiff does not refer to such in his motion. Therefore, plaintiff's motion will be denied without prejudice. Accordingly,

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to compel (Doc. No. 29) is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Pennington

United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division
Aug 3, 2010
4:10CV00147SWW/JTK (E.D. Ark. Aug. 3, 2010)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Pennington

Case Details

Full title:FREDERICK DANIEL RODRIGUEZ, ADC #123618 PLAINTIFF v. BRUCE PENNINGTON, et…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division

Date published: Aug 3, 2010

Citations

4:10CV00147SWW/JTK (E.D. Ark. Aug. 3, 2010)