UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STEVEN ALLAN SHAWLEY, :

:

 Plaintiff : No. 4:CV-04-1189

:

vs. : Removal Petition Filed 6/02/04

:

CLINTON COUNTY BOARD OF : (Judge Muir)

COMMISSIONERS, et al., :

:

Defendants : 

ORDER

April 19, 2005

THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:

This is a civil rights action which Plaintiff Steven Allan

Shawley filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Clinton County and

the Defendants removed to this court on June 2, 2004. Shawley is

an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at

Dallas, Pennsylvania. Shawley’s fundamental allegations are that

the Defendants have violated his constitutional rights by failing

to 1) prevent another inmate, Mark Alonzo Williams, from

attacking Shawley, and 2) provide Shawley with adequate access to

legal materials.

On March 10, 2005, Shawley filed the following two motions:

1) “Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Sufficiency of [Defendant

McCool’s] Answers to Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions”; and 2)

“Motion to Determine Sufficiency of Responses to Request for

Admissions to Defendant Immel.” The relief he seeks in those

Case 4:04-cv-01189-MM Document 68 Filed 04/19/05 Page 1 of 3
2

motions is to have the matters addressed in his requests be

deemed admitted. We will address both of those motions in this

order.

As a threshold matter we note that a brief in support of

each of those motions was due to have been filed on March 25,

2005. To this date, Shawley has failed to file a brief in

support of either of those motions. One reason to deny the

motions is that because of Shawley’s failure to file supporting

briefs the motions have been withdrawn. See M.D. Local Rule 7.5

(“... if a supporting brief is not filed within the time provided

in this rule such motion shall be deemed to be withdrawn.”)

However, that is not the only reason to deny the motions.

In both of his motions to “determine [the] sufficiency” of

the Defendants’ responses to his requests for admissions, Shawley

asserts only two very general and conclusory arguments. He

contends that we should compel additional responses to the

discovery requests he served upon Defendants McCool and Immel

because 1) their answers are evasive and incomplete, and 2) some

of their responses “are not adequate verified denials.” (Motions,

¶¶ 3, 4) Shawley has not presented adequate information to

support either of those contentions.

Specifically with respect to his first argument, we have

reviewed Shawley’s requests for admissions and the Defendants’

Case 4:04-cv-01189-MM Document 68 Filed 04/19/05 Page 2 of 3
3

responses thereto. We are of the view that the Defendants’

responses comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

We reach the same conclusion with respect to Shawley’s

second argument. The Defendants’ responses to the requests for

admissions were signed by the Defendants’ counsel. Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 36, entitled “Requests for Admission,”

expressly states that responses to a request for admission may be

“signed by the party or the party’s attorney.” Fed.R.Civ.P.

36(a).

Shawley has not shown that the Defendants’ responses to his

requests for admissions are deficient in any manner. We will

deny Shawley’s motions to have the matters addressed in his

requests for admissions be deemed admitted.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Shawley’s “Motion to Determine Sufficiency of

‘Defendant McCool’s] Answers to Plaintiff’s Request for

Admissions” (Document 59) is denied.

2. Shawley’s “Motion to Determine Sufficiency of responses

t request for Admissions to Defendant Immel” (Document

62) is denied.

s/Malcolm Muir

______________________

__

MUIR, U.S. District Judge

MM:ga

Case 4:04-cv-01189-MM Document 68 Filed 04/19/05 Page 3 of 3