Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_06-cv-00737/USCOURTS-almd-1_06-cv-00737-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

 Although plaintiff requested “judgement,” the previous motion (Doc. # 30), which

the court construed as a motion to compel, does not appear to seek judgment in the Rule 58

sense. See Motion (Doc. # 33)(“How can the court misunderstand that the plaintiff

MOTION FOR JUGEMENT to be construed as motion to complied discovery, when the

plaintiff clearly states in the plaintiff MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT that the defendant did

not use good judgement or make a good faith effort to answer all of the plaintiff disclosure

questions mailed to the defendant attorney.”). Accordingly, the motion was properly

construed as a discovery motion.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANGELA DENISE NAILS, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:06cv737-WKW

) (WO)

DOTHAN RESCUE MISSION, )

 )

Defendant. )

ORDER

This action is presently before the court on plaintiff's “motion of issue of motion for

jugement [sic]” (Doc. # 33), which the court construes as a motion to reconsider its previous

order denying plaintiff’s motion for judgment (Doc. # 30).1

 In the present motion, plaintiff

continues to complain of defendant’s failure to answer her discovery requests fully; however,

the court remains unable to determine the precise nature of the discovery dispute. The court

previously advised plaintiff of the requirement of Local Rule 37.2 that any discovery motion

include either a copy of the discovery requests and responses at issue or “a verbatim

recitation of each interrogatory, request, answer, response, and objection which is the subject

of the motion[.]” Plaintiff has not complied with this requirement and, thus, the court cannot

Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 35 Filed 01/03/07 Page 1 of 2
enter an order compelling responses to discovery.

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to reconsider (Doc. # 33) is DENIED without

prejudice.

DONE, this 3rd day of January, 2007.

/s/ Susan Russ Walker 

SUSAN RUSS WALKER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00737-WKW-SRW Document 35 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2