Curtis Dillard, Jr. v. Patrella et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CURTIS DILLARD, JR., Plaintiff, v. 1:25CV849 PATRELLA et al., Defendants.

ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE This case is before the Court on the formal education of law.” Docket plaintiff Curtis Dillard, Jr.’s motions Entry 11 at 1. The Court denied his for appointment of counsel, Docket request. Text Order, 12/15/2025.

Entry 14, and summary judgment, Docket Entry 15. The defendants Now, Dillard again moves for argue that Dillard’s summary appointment of counsel, making judgment motion is premature and essentially the same argument. See have therefore filed a motion to stay Docket Entry 14 at 1. (“The dispositive motions and discovery representatives are experienced for until the Court issues a scheduling the defendants while the plaintiff is order. Docket Entry 16. pro se and unfamiliar with the procedures of the court.”). While the The Court denies Dillard’s motion to Court’s earlier decision was without appoint counsel, Docket Entry 14, and prejudice, the Court’s earlier grants the defendants’ motion to stay reasoning holds, and courts generally discovery and dispositive motions, do not reopen issues already decided Docket Entry 16. It is recommended absent new evidence, arguments, or that the Court deny Dillard’s motion clear error. See White v. City of for summary judgment, Docket Entry Greensboro, 586 F. Supp. 3d 466, 491 15, as premature. (M.D.N.C. 2022).

I. MOTION TO APPOINT Accordingly, the Court denies COUNSEL Dillard’s motion to appoint counsel.

Earlier in these proceedings, Dillard requested that the Court appoint counsel for him, citing his “limited II. MOTIONS REGARDING Accordingly, the Court grants the SUMMARY JUDGMENT defendants’ motion, Docket Entry 16, and stays discovery and dispositive “[S]ummary judgment should only be motions until the Court files its granted ‘after adequate time for scheduling order. discovery.” McCray v. Maryland Dep’t of Transp., Maryland Transit It is recommended that the Court Admin., 741 F.3d 480, 483 (4th Cir. deny Dillard’s motion for summary 2014) (quoting Celotex Corp. v. judgment, Docket Entry 15, as Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986)). premature.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) requires that the non-movant file an II. CONCLUSION affidavit or declaration showing summary judgment is premature. IT IS ORDERED that Dillard’s “However, strict compliance with this motion for appointment of counsel, requirement is not necessary if the Docket Entry 14, is DENIED, that the nonmoving party ‘has had little or no defendants’ motion to stay discovery opportunity to conduct discovery’ and and dispositive motions, Docket ‘the nonmoving party has adequately Entry 16, is GRANTED, and that informed the district court that the dispositive motions or discovery motion is pre-mature and that more requests filed before this Court enters discovery is necessary.” Brent v. City the scheduling order are deemed of Cumberland Police Dep’t, 700 F. premature.

Supp. 3d 314, 320 (D. Md. 2023) (quoting Harrods Ltd. v. Sixty IT IS RECOMMENDED that Internet Domain Names, 302 F.3d Dillard’s motion for summary 214, 244 (4th Cir. 2002)). judgment, Docket Entry 15, be DENIED as premature.

Here, Dillard moved for summary judgment before the Court entered a scheduling order, see Docket Entry 15, which is the time when discovery customarily begins. The defendants JdAlhna Gibsofl McFadden have therefore had no opportunity for ted States Magistrate Judge discovery, as they adequately informed the Court in their motion to April 10, 2026 stay discovery and_ dispositive Durham. NC motions. See Docket Entry 16. And , discovery appears necessary given that Dillard cites video evidence— which is not currently on the record— in his motion. See Docket Entry 15 at 1.