United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division
Honorable Judith E. Levy, Judge
ORDER REGARDING MULTIPLE NON-DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
ELIZABETH A. STAFFORD, United States Magistrate Judge
Pro se plaintiffs Cameron Fitts (“Fitts”), Michael Davis (“Davis”), and Kenneth Wilson (“Wilson”; collectively “Plaintiffs”) brought this § 1983 prisoner civil rights case against 17 individuals (“Defendants”) in August 2012. . On January 7, 2015, the Honorable Judith E. Levy referred the case to the undersigned to resolve all pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B). . Before the Court are multiple non-dispositive motions. For the reasons discussed below, the Court ORDERS that:
1. Fitts’s Motion For an Evidentiary Hearing  is DENIED and his Motions to Appoint Counsel and For a Settlement Conference  are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE;
2. Fitts’s Motion for Speedy Hearing  is GRANTED;
3. Fitts’s Motion to Transfer Co-Plaintiffs to a Federal Prison  and Davis’s Three Miscellaneous Pleadings [119, 127, 131] are STRICKEN;
4. The case caption is AMENDED to correctly identify Vives by her full name; and
5. The deadline to conduct discovery is May 22, 2015, the deadline to file dispositive motions is June 26, 2015, and the parties may only amend the pleadings if they first obtain leave of court.
Plaintiffs brought this action on August 13, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. . On October 1, 2012, Plaintiffs filed the operative amended complaint. . When they brought this action, all Plaintiffs were in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”). Davis and Wilson remain in custody, while Fitts was released in September 2013. [See 85].
The Court previously dismissed all but four Defendants: Parole Officers Rogers and Hawes; former Administrator of the MDOC’s Hearings and Policy Division, Marjorie Van Ochten; and Nurse Practitioner Rene Vives. [See 49 and 54; 63 and 80]. In a separate Report and Recommendation (“R & R”), the Court has recommended dismissing Van Ochten, Rogers, and Hawes from this action. [See 133]. If the Court’s recommendations are adopted, Vives will be the only remaining Defendant, Fitts will be the only remaining plaintiff, and the only remaining claim will be Fitts’s allegation that Vives withheld medication from him as retaliation for filing a grievance. [Id.].
In this order, the Court addresses the pending non-dispositive motions.
A. Fitts’s ...