IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS CENTRAL DIVISION

MALIK A. WALLACE PLAINTIFF ADC #180775

V. NO. 4:24-cv-00795-KGB-ERE

XAVIER SUTTON, et al. DEFENDANTS

ORDER

Pro se plaintiff Mallik A. Wallace has filed a motion seeking: (1) summary judgment on the merits of his claims; and (2) a Court Order compelling Defendants Sutton and Chambers/Carter to respond to his discovery requests. Doc. 28. For the reasons stated below, Mr. Wallace’s motion is denied. 1. Motion for Summary Judgment Mr. Wallace’s motion, although labelled as motion for summary judgment, fails to contain the minimum requirements for such a motion. In substance, it is not a motion for summary judgment and provides no legal or factual basis for granting any relief. Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrates that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,

(1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby Inc.,

(1986). The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex,

. Once that has been done, the nonmoving party must present specific facts demonstrating that there is a material dispute for trial. See FED. R. CIv. P. 56(c); Torgerson v. City of Rochester,

(8th Cir. 2011). Mr. Wallace also fails to provide a brief in support of his motion and a statement of undisputed facts, both of which are required by this Court’s Local Rules. See Local Rules 7.2 (a) and 56.1. 2. Motion to Compel In his motion to compel, Mr. Wallace requests that the Court order Defendants Sutton and Chambers/Carter to respond to his discovery requests. However, discovery in this matter has been open only since August 1, 2025. Doc. 27. Therefore, the time for Defendants to respond to any of Mr. Wallace’s discovery requests has not yet expired. See FED. R. CIv. P. 33(b)(2) and FED. R. Clv. P. 34 (b)(2)(A). In addition, in his motion, Mr. Wallace failed to include any certification that he attempted to resolve this discovery dispute before seeking Court intervention

as required by this Court’s Local Rules. See Local Rule 7.2 (g). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT Mr. Wallace’s motion (Doc. 28) is DENIED. Dated 20 August 2025. * M Z/NV_. LAMA