Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

JAMAL CHE GLENN,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No. 5:02cv158-MP/WCS

TIMOTHY A. COPELAND, 

OFFICER LOPRESTI,

SGT. PALAZZOLO,

SGT. DELANEY F. STOE,

WARDEN HENRY D. ALFORD,

OFFICER M. ROGERS, 

and NURSE MARIA HALL,

Defendants.

 /

O R D E R

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for status conference. Doc. 130. 

Plaintiff states in his motion that the undersigned issued a report and recommendation

denying Plaintiff's motions to amend and supplement the complaint. See doc. 97. 

Plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation, doc. 107, as did the

Defendants, doc. 109. Plaintiff complains that no ruling has been made yet on the

pending motion and report and recommendation. It appears that due to an oversight,

the pending motion and report and recommendation and related objections were not

Case 5:02-cv-00158-RS-WCS Document 131 Filed 08/11/05 Page 1 of 3
Page 2 of 3

1

 The parties must show good cause to engage in additional discovery which

means they must demonstrate there is a need for the materials sought, the materials

are relevant to developing material issues not already covered through the special

report process, the information is not otherwise available to the party, and the discovery

is necessary to provide a full and fair hearing on the merits. See doc. 127.

Case No. 5:02cv158-MP/WCS

referred to the district judge. Having been advised of this problem by Plaintiff, this order

directs the Clerk to immediately refer those documents to the assigned district judge. 

As a ruling will be entered in the near future, Plaintiff's motion for status conference is

denied. Should Plaintiff's motion to amend be permitted and the report and

recommendation be rejected, Plaintiff may renew the motion for status conference.

As noted in the order entered on July 20, 2005, the parties were given until July

27, 2005, in which to file motions for additional discovery. Doc. 117. Only Plaintiff filed

a motion for limited discovery, doc. 125. Plaintiff's motion, however, did not have

attached the two exhibits referenced. Thus, the July 20th Order stated that no ruling

would be issued as yet and Plaintiff would be given until August 12, 2005, to file a

corrected motion which contained all necessary exhibits or attachments. Because

Plaintiff was being given more time to submit a discovery motion, Defendants were

afforded the same courtesy and also have until August 12, 2005, in which to file a

motion for additional discovery if desired.1 All proposed discovery requests must be

attached to the motion. The parties shall not file a reply to the opposing party's motion

for discovery until directed to do so by the Court. 

After any discovery period which may be provided, the parties will be given

further direction as to filing their respective pre-trial statements, witness lists, and the

like. It is expected that regardless of subsequent discovery, this case will proceed to

trial in the fall of 2005.

Case 5:02-cv-00158-RS-WCS Document 131 Filed 08/11/05 Page 2 of 3
Page 3 of 3

Case No. 5:02cv158-MP/WCS

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Ruling remains DEFERRED on Plaintiff's motion for limited discovery, doc.

125.

2. The parties have until August 12, 2005, to file motions detailing the scope

and nature of any further discovery necessary, and showing good cause for a need to

conduct such discovery. 

3. Plaintiff's motion for status conference, doc. 130, is DENIED.

4. The Clerk shall immediately refer Plaintiff's motion to amend, doc. 95, the

report and recommendation, doc. 97, and the parties' objections, docs. 107 and 109.

5. The Clerk shall return this file to the undersigned on August 12, 2005.

DONE AND ORDERED on August 11, 2005.

s/ William C. Sherrill, Jr. 

WILLIAM C. SHERRILL, JR.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:02-cv-00158-RS-WCS Document 131 Filed 08/11/05 Page 3 of 3