UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ROBERT SILER,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-CV-15077

vs.

DISTRICT JUDGE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

W. BALDWIN, et al., MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

Defendants.

__________________________/

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION OF

 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND (DOCKET NO. 82) AND

 DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND

PLAINTIFF’S RULE 56(f) AFFIDAVIT (DOCKET NO. 83)

These matters come before the Court on two motions. The first motion is Plaintiff’s Motion

for Consideration of Motion for Leave to Amend, filed on February 5, 2010. (Docket no. 82). The

second motion is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiff’s Rule 56(f) Affidavit, filed on

February 5, 2010. (Docket no. 83). Defendant Baldwin did not file responses to the motions and

the time for responding has expired. All pretrial matters have been referred to the undersigned for

decision. (Docket no. 11). The Court dispenses with oral argument pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR

7.1(e). These matters are now ready for ruling.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Consideration asking the Court to consider his Motion

for Leave to Amend Plaintiff’s Rule 56(f) Affidavit. The Court will grant Plaintiff’s Motion for

Consideration. In Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend, Plaintiff requests permission to amend

his Rule 56(f) affidavit, which was submitted on December 14, 2009 along with a brief in opposition

to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Docket no. 74). In the instant motion, Plaintiff asks

1
that he be permitted to supplement his Rule 56(f) affidavit to specifically identify what material facts

he believes he will uncover if he is allowed more time to conduct discovery. (Docket no. 83).

On March 16, 2010 the district court considered this Court’s Report and Recommendation

on Defendant Baldwin’s motion for summary judgment and determined that a triable issue remains

as to whether Defendant Baldwin acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s serious medical

need. (Docket no. 90). The Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s Rule 56(f) affidavit pertains to Plaintiff’s

response to Defendant Baldwin’s motion for summary judgment only and has no bearing on

Plaintiff’s ability to conduct discovery for purposes of trial. Because the Court has already ruled

on the motion for summary judgment and found in favor of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave

to Amend will be denied as moot.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Consideration of Motion for

Leave to Amend (docket no. 82) is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend Plaintiff’s Rule

56(f) Affidavit (docket no. 83) is DENIED as MOOT. (Docket no. 83).

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties have a period of fourteen days from the date of

this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible under

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Dated: April 27, 2010 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

MONA K. MAJZOUB

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE

2
I hereby certify that a copy of this Order was served upon Robert Siler and Counsel of

Record on this date.

Dated: April 27, 2010 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

Case Manager

3