UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
March 7, 2008
GABRIEL MIDALGO, PLAINTIFF,
MCLAUGHLIN; COMMISSIONER GOORD; SGT. OLSEN; C.O. CARTER; C.O. MILLER; C.O. REED; DRUKIN, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Randolph F. Treece, U.S. Magistrate Judge
DECISION AND ORDER
Presently before the Court is a motion to compel discovery filed by pro se plaintiff Gabriel Midalgo. Dkt. No. 32.*fn1 Defendants oppose the motion. Dkt. No. 34.
Plaintiff's motion to compel relates to plaintiff's request for production of documents ("RFP") dated July 23, 2007. Dkt. No. 32. Plaintiff states that, as of the date of his motion, no response had been provided to his RFP. Id. at 1. Defendants oppose plaintiff's motion. Dkt. No. 34. Defendants state that on October 11, 2007, they sent Plaintiff a response to the RFP. Id., Attached Declaration of Service. Defendants indicate that the response included 86 pages, and that Plaintiff "was advised that additional pages will be produced upon plaintiff's return of a medical release[.]" Id. at 1. Plaintiff did not object to the response after he received it, and has not indicated that he believes the response to be incomplete, or that any objections made therein are not legally sufficient. Although defendants have failed to provide the Court with copies of the documents produced, Plaintiff has not taken exception to Defendants' assertion that they have responded in full to Plaintiff's RFP. Accordingly, Plaintiff's first motion to compel (Dkt. No. 16) is denied as moot. See, e.g., Hamilton v. Poole, No. 95-CV-239H, 1997 WL 626406, at *6 (W.D.N.Y. Sep. 22, 1997) (denying motion to compel filed by plaintiff where defendants responded to discovery after motion was filed).
WHEREFORE, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 32) is denied as moot, and it is further
ORDERED, that the Clerk serve a copy of this Decision and Order on the parties in accordance with the Local Rules.