Simkins v. McIntosh et al, No. 3:2019cv00227 - Document 158 (S.D. Ohio 2022)

Court Description: DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DAYTON OSTEOPATHIC HOSPITAL AND KETTERING ADVENTIST HEALTHCARE (DOC. # 122 ), WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO RENEWAL FOLLOWING THE END OF THE DISCOVE RY PERIOD; MOTION OF DEFENDANTS' DAYTON OSTEOPATHIC HOSPITAL AND KETTERING ADVENTIST HEALTHCARE TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 56(d), SUSTAINED. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 9/29/2022. (bjr)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Download PDF
Simkins v. McIntosh et al Doc. 158 Case: 3:19-cv-00227-WHR-PBS Doc #: 158 Filed: 09/29/22 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 1015 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE SOUTHERNDISTRICTOF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION RICHARDLEESIMKINS,III, Plaintiff, CaseNo. 3:19cr227 vs. CHmSTOPHER MCINTOSH, et al., JUDGE WALTER H. RICE Defendants. DECISIONAND ENTRYOVERRULINGPLAINTIFF'SMOTIONFOR SUMMARYJUDGMENTORPARTIALSUMMARYJUDGMENTAGAINST DAYTONOSTEOPATHICHOSPITALAND KETTERINGADVENTIST HEALTHCARE (DOC. #122), WITHOUT PREJUDICETO RENEWAL FOLLOWINGTHE ENDOF THE DISCOVERYPERIOD;MOTIONOF DEFENDANTSDAYTONOSTEOPATHICHOSPITALAND KETTERING ADVENTIST HEALTHCARE TO DEFER CONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFF'SMOTIONFOR SUMMARYORPARTIALSUMMARY JUDGMENT, PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 56(d), SUSTAINED Pro Se Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment against Defendants Dayton Osteopathic Hospital and Kettering Adventist Healthcare (Doc. #122). Said Defendants have filed a motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d), to defer consideration of Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment until such time as documentary and testimonial discovery has been completed. The Defendants' motion hasyet to be ruled upon. The motion ofthe Defendants is supported by the affidavit of their attorney, Timothy G. Pepper. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs motion is OVERRULED,andthat ofthe Defendantsis SUSTAD4ED Dockets.Justia.com Case: 3:19-cv-00227-WHR-PBS Doc #: 158 Filed: 09/29/22 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 1016 While a motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment may be filed at any time until 30 days after the close ofthe discovery period, certain practicalities often weigh against a court sustaining such a motion prior to the completion ofdiscovery. It is axiomatic that, quite ofiten, the posture of a case, from either or both the Plaintiffs or Defendants' perspective, changes astheresult ofthe exchange ofdocumentary discovery, discovery provided by wayof depositions and/or by any other means ofdiscovery authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, quite often, the thrust or evidentiary posture upon which an earlier filed motion for summary judgment is based becomes moot or changes in part or entirely by the time the discovery period has ended. As ofthe time ofthe Defendants' Motion to Defer Consideration of Plaintiff s Motion, no testimony by way of depositions had been taken and other discovery was, although managed in excellent fashion by the Magistrate Judge, the subject of disputed positions. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #122) is OVERRULED, without prejudice to renewal within 30 days' time ofthe expiration ofthe period ofdiscovery. The Defendants' motion to defer consideration until the conclusion ofthe discovery period is SUSTAINED. -N^ September 29, 2022 Copies to: Counsel of record WALTER H. RICE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.