From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hill v. Wright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION
Feb 7, 2013
5:12-cv-00329-DPM-JJV (E.D. Ark. Feb. 7, 2013)

Opinion

5:12-cv-00329-DPM-JJV

02-07-2013

STEVEN EARL HILL, JR. PLAINTIFF ADC # 139009 v. MATTHEW PAUL WRIGHT, JR., Lt., Varner Super Max, ADC; and SCOTT A. TAYLOR, Lt., Varner Super Max, ADC DEFENDANTS


ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment. (Doc. No. 30). In the Motion, Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants are in default because they failed to respond to his Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 22). Plaintiff's assertion is erroneous. On January 11, 2013, the Defendants submitted a timely Response in Opposition to his Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 28) and the Motion was subsequently denied. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment is, therefore, DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 7th day of February, 2013.

__________

JOE J. VOLPE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Hill v. Wright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION
Feb 7, 2013
5:12-cv-00329-DPM-JJV (E.D. Ark. Feb. 7, 2013)
Case details for

Hill v. Wright

Case Details

Full title:STEVEN EARL HILL, JR. PLAINTIFF ADC # 139009 v. MATTHEW PAUL WRIGHT, JR.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS PINE BLUFF DIVISION

Date published: Feb 7, 2013

Citations

5:12-cv-00329-DPM-JJV (E.D. Ark. Feb. 7, 2013)