This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
Case No. 3:18-cv-543-DRH-DGW (S.D. Ill. Jul. 25, 2018)

Case No. 3:18-cv-543-DRH-DGW


JEFFREY H. EASTMAN, Plaintiff, v. DR. DENNIS LARSON, Defendant.


WILKERSON, Magistrate Judge :

This matter has been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson by United States District David R. Herndon pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), and SDIL-LR 72.1(a) for a Report and Recommendation on the Motion to Temporarily Halt Legal Proceedings to Attain Counsel (Doc. 36). For the reasons set forth below, it is RECOMMENDED the motion be DENIED, and the Court adopt the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.

On March 7, 2018, Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violation of his constitutional rights resulting from deliberate indifference to his serious medical condition (Doc. 11, p. 8). A threshold order was entered and this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Donald G. Wilkerson on March 22, 2018 (Doc. 11). Since that time, service has been obtained on Defendant Larson (Doc. 28) and he filed an answer to the Complaint on June 22, 2018 (Doc. 31).

Plaintiff filed the pending motion on July 18, 2018 asking the Court to temporarily stay the case so that an attorney he contacted could review the file (Doc. 36, p. 1). This Court enjoys broad discretion in directing the course of discovery. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26; James v. Hyatt Regency Chicago, 707 F.3d 775, 784 (7th Cir. 2013). Discovery can be stayed, however, if certain threshold or jurisdictional issues could be efficiently resolved prior to expensive discovery. See Todd by Todd v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 942 F.2d 1173, 1178 (7th Cir. 1991) ("Limiting discovery to a threshold issue is proper in a case that may be resolved upon summary judgment"); Landstrom v. Illinois Dept. of Children and Family Services, 892 F.2d 670, 674 (7th Cir 1990) (approving a stay in discovery pending a ruling on qualified immunity).

As this court informed Plaintiff previously, no scheduling or discovery order has yet been entered in this case (Doc. 24, pp. 3-4). As there is no discovery to stay, and no jurisdictional or threshold issues pending, it is RECOMMENDED the Court DENY Plaintiff's Motion to Stay. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED the Court ADVISE Plaintiff that should an attorney enter on his behalf after a discovery or scheduling order is entered, the Court would entertain a motion to amend that order.


Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and SDIL-LR 73.1(b), any party may serve and file written OBJECTIONS to this Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law within fourteen (14) days after service. Failure to file such OBJECTIONS shall result in a waiver of the right to appeal all issues, both factual and legal, which are addressed in the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Video Views, Inc. v. Studio 21, Ltd. and Joseph Sclafani, 797 F.2d 538 (7th Cir. 1986).

You are not to file an appeal as to the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. An appeal is inappropriate until after the District Judge issues an Order either affirming or reversing the Report and Recommendation/Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. DATED: July 25, 2018



United States Magistrate Judge