IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
April 27, 2009
SHAUNTEZ T. HAIRSTON, PLAINTIFF,
KENNETH MCCAIN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Donald G. Wilkerson United States Magistrate Judge
Now pending before the Court are Plaintiff Shauntez Hairston's Motions for Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff (Doc. 21) and to Compel Defendants McCain and Reddy to Answer the Complaint (Doc. 35). For the reasons set forth below, both motions are DENIED.
MOTION FOR JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF
In this motion, filed February 6, 2009, Plaintiff states his belief that his case has been unnecessarily delayed. He asks the Court to explain to him why the case has not proceeded and to render judgment in his favor forthwith so that the defendants are not allowed "to get away with being deliberately indifferent to my mental health needs." Since Plaintiff filed this motion, his case has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for disposition of pretrial matters, all defendants have been served, and all but two have filed a responsive pleading. In short, since the filing of the motion, Plaintiff's case has proceeded in an appropriate and timely manner. Thus, Plaintiff's request for judgment (Doc. 21) is DENIED as MOOT.
MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANTS TO ANSWER THE COMPLAINT
The docket reflects that a waiver of service was returned executed as to Kenneth McCain on March 18, 2009, and that his answer, or other responsive pleading, is due by May 4, 2009 (Doc. 31). The docket also reflects that a waiver of service as to Defendant Reddy was returned executed on March 26, 2009. Defendant Reddy's answer is also due on May 4, 2009 (Doc. 34). Thus, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is premature because Defendants McCain and Reddy have until May 4, 2009, to file a responsive pleading. For that reason, Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Defendants McCain and Reddy to Answer Complaint (Doc. 35) is DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.