Brown v. Malicki et al, No. 3:2008cv00141 - Document 39 (S.D. Ohio 2009)
Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER DENYING STAY - Plaintiff's Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 38) is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 5/12/2009. (kopf1, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON DAVID A. BROWN, Plaintiff, : Case No. 3:08-cv-141 District Judge Thomas M. Rose Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz -vs: OFFICER MALICKI, et al., Defendants. DECISION AND ORDER DENYING STAY This case is before the Court on Plaintiff s Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 38), filed in response to the Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendations on Defendant Malicki s motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiff seeks a stay because he alleges he was unprepared to litigate this action. However, Plaintiff filed this action pro se, participated in its scheduling, actively sought and obtained discovery, and filed evidence along with his opposition to the motion for summary judgment. The schedule sought in this case was completely in agreement with Plaintiff s stated need for time and the motion for summary judgment was filed after all discovery had been completed. Plaintiff neither sought more discovery nor filed a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) to show why he could not respond to the motion for summary judgment. Even now, faced with a recommendation for dismissal, Plaintiff does not suggest what additional information he would obtain or from whom or to prove what point. The Motion for Stay is DENIED. May 12, 2009. s/ Michael R. Merz United States Magistrate Judge 1
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
