Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05203/USCOURTS-arwd-5_05-cv-05203-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION

KEVIN P. WALKER and

ANGIE WALKER PLAINTIFFS

v. Civil No. 05-5203

DEPUTY JOE POWELL,

BENTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, in

his individual capacity DEFENDANT

O R D E R

Now on this 7th day of August, 2006, comes on for

consideration Plaintiff’s Motion To Dismiss Defendant’s Motion For

Summary Judgment (document #14), and from said motion, and a

review of the pleadings, the Court finds and orders as follows:

1. On July 25, 2006, defendant filed a Motion For Summary

Judgment. This was one week after the deadline for filing

dispositive motions imposed by the Court’s Scheduling Order.

Leave for the belated filing was not sought, and no reason was

given why the motion was not timely filed. 

Plaintiff contends that the Motion For Summary Judgment

should be summarily dismissed because of the delay. In the

alternative, plaintiff asks for “a reasonable time to file a

formal response.”

2. While the Court agrees with plaintiff that the deadlines

in the Scheduling Order should be adhered to, it is not inclined

to grant plaintiff’s motion. There is a preference in the law for

issues to be decided on their merits, rather than on

Case 5:05-cv-05203-JLH Document 15 Filed 08/07/06 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>
-2-

technicalities. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962). Given the

shortness of the delay, the Court does not believe there could be

any possible prejudice to plaintiff - nor is any alleged - and the

Court finds that it is appropriate to allow a response, and then

to resolve the Motion For Summary Judgment on its merits. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion To Dismiss

Defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment (document #14) is denied,

and plaintiff is allowed up to and including August 21, 2006, to

file a response to defendant’s Motion For Summary Judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ Jimm Larry Hendren 

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:05-cv-05203-JLH Document 15 Filed 08/07/06 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: <pageID>