Feaster v. Chambers-Smith et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
TERRANCE J. FEASTER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
ANNETTE CHAMBERS-SMITH, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Case No. 1:22-cv-453
District Judge Susan J. Dlott
Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
ORDER
This case is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motions to Stay Discovery and Dispositive
Motion Deadlines (Doc. #s 91, 93), Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. #94), Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to File Objections to Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. #95);
Defendants’ Motion to Extend Dispositive Motion and Discovery Deadlines & Response to
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Objections (Doc. #96), and Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension
of Time (Doc. #101).
The undersigned held a discovery teleconference on January 26, 2026. Plaintiff Terrance
J. Feaster appeared pro se, and Brandon Kennedy appeared on behalf of Defendants. 	The
undersigned discussed the above motions with the parties.
As discussed during the teleconference, Plaintiff’s Motions to Stay Discovery and
Dispositive Motion Deadlines (Doc. #s 91, 93) are hereby DENIED. To the extent that Plaintiff
seeks to amend or correct his motions to compel, his request is DENIED. However, Defendants
are DIRECTED to provide Plaintiff a list1 of the disputed discovery requests and Defendants’
1 Defendants shall also file a notice on the docket with the attached list.
Case: 1:22-cv-00453-SJD-PBS Doc #: 102 Filed: 01/28/26 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>

2
reasoning for declining to provide the requested documents or information. 	Plaintiff is then
permitted to file one motion to compel regarding the disputed discovery requests. 	Plaintiff's
motion to compel should be limited only to the matters of discovery at issue in Defendants’ list.
Moreover, to allow the parties to resolve their discovery disputes, Defendants’ Motion to
Extend Dispositive Motion and Discovery Deadlines (Doc. #96) is hereby GRANTED. 	The
discovery deadline is extended to April 27, 2026, and the dispositive motion deadline is extended
to May 27, 2026. No further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.
Plaintiff has also requested additional time to file objections to the Court’s September 18,
2025 Order (Doc. #85). However, Plaintiff did not file these requests until long after the Order
was issued. 	Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. #94) and Plaintiff’s
Motion for Leave to File Objections to Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. #95)
are hereby DENIED.
Finally, Plaintiff requests additional time to file objections to the December 30, 2025,
Report and Recommendations (Doc. #99). Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. #101)
is 	hereby 	GRANTED. 	Plaintiff’s 	objections 	to 	the 	December 	30, 	2025, 	Report 	and
Recommendations (Doc. #99) are due on or before February 13, 2026. 	As noted during the
teleconference, no further extensions will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
January 28, 2026 	s/Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
Peter B. Silvain, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Case: 1:22-cv-00453-SJD-PBS Doc #: 102 Filed: 01/28/26 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>