Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Simmons v. Catton

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION


May 14, 2010

KENNETH W. SIMMONS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SGT. CATTON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Byron G. Cudmore United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BYRON G. CUDMORE, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court are various motions filed by the pro se Plaintiff and Defendants' consolidated response. The Court rules and/or recommends as follows:

Motion for Defendant to Pay Costs (d/e 111) denied as moot without prejudice to later refiling as pro se Plaintiff on March 26, 2010 filed his motion to quash notice of depositions which the Court allowed.

Motion to Compel (d/e 113) denied as Defendants advise after a thorough search that the sole recorded conversation between pro se Plaintiff and TAZECOMM has been provided to pro se Plaintiff on May 5, 2010. The Defendants cannot be ordered to produce what does not exist.

Motion to Amend (d/e 116): Based upon the history of this litigation, the number of amended complaints filed by the pro se Plaintiff, and the fact that the Court on April 13, 2009 ordered that the Amended Complaint filed April 6, 2009 was to be filed as Plaintiff's Final Amended Complaint, it is recommended that Motion to Amend (d/e 116) be denied. Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed in writing with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen days after service of a copy of this Order and Report and Recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Failure to timely object will constitute a waiver of objections on appeal. Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd., 797 F.2d 538, 539 (7th Cir. 1986). See also Local Rule 72.2.

Motion to Extend Discovery (d/e 117) is allowed in part in that pro se Plaintiff is allowed until June 1, 2010 to conduct appropriate discovery to identify the dispatcher at issue with TAZECOMM. Pro se Plaintiff has been advised that TAZECOMM is a separate entity not represented by Attorney Holly. The Court finds the information sought by pro se Plaintiff in Motion (d/e 117) is relevant to the case as currently filed.

Also pending are various motions filed by pro se Plaintiff (d/es 119, 120, 121, 122). Defendants to file comprehensive response by May 24, 2010.

ENTER: May 14, 2010

20100514

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.