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.

Lyons v. McGinnis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


January 9, 2006

DAEVON LYONS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL MCGINNIS, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Marian W. Payson United States Magistrate Judge

DECISION & ORDER

On April 6, 2004, plaintiff filed a pro se complaint, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging, inter alia, that defendants violated his constitutional rights under the Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. (Docket # 1). According to plaintiff, the Superintendent of Southport Correctional Facility, Michael McGinnis, and other named defendants, conspired to compel him to confess to a crime he did not commit by subjecting him to cruel and unusual conditions of confinement, including beatings, harassment and deprivation of food and sleep.

On October 20, 2005, plaintiff moved this Court to compel defendants' responses to numerous interrogatories and to compel responses to his Third and Fourth Requests for Production of Documents. (Docket # 86). A motion scheduling order was thereafter issued by the Court requiring defendants to submit a response to the motion by November 18, 2005. (Docket # 89). Although defendants failed to submit a response to the motion, they have since provided plaintiff with answers to each of his requests except for his Fourth Request for the Production of Documents. By letter dated December 8, 2005, plaintiff wrote to this Court advising of defendants' deficiency relating to that request. (Docket # 101). This letter was inadvertently docketed as a subsequent motion to compel and, by Order dated December 14, 2005, defendants were permitted until January 6, 2006, to respond. (Docket # 102). Once again, however, defendants have failed to comply with the scheduling order and, as of January 9, 2006, have yet to respond to plaintiff's document request. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to compel (Docket # 101) is hereby GRANTED. Defendants shall file a response to plaintiff's Fourth Request for the Production of Documents by January 20, 2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Rochester, New York

20060109

© 1992-2006 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.