*1 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Darnell Anderson's (“Anderson”) Motion to Compel [DE 118], Motion to Object to Defendants’ Response [DE 122], and Motion to Object to Defendants’ Notice of Filing [DE 125]. Chief Judge Reeves referred this case to the undersigned for pretrial matters. [DE 52]. As explained below, the Court will deny each motion.

A. MOTION TO COMPEL [DE 118]

Anderson seeks to compel Defendants to respond to five discovery requests. [DE 118]. Specifically, Anderson asserts that he sent to Defendants “Plaintiff's Fourth Set of Requests for Admission” on December 14, 2021; a “Request for Production of Documents” on December 17, 2021; “Plaintiff's Fifth Set of Requests for Admission” on December 24, 2021; “Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Fifth Set)” and “Plaintiff's Sixth Set of Requests for Admission” on January 4, 2022; and “Plaintiff's Sixth Set of Interrogatories” on April 24, 2022. [DE 118-1, Page ID# 1350]. Anderson states that, as of the date he filed his motion, April 24, 2022, he had not yet received a response to any of these requests. [Id.].

Defendants responded that they provided the sought information to Anderson. Consequently, Anderson's request is denied as moot because it appears Defendants have responded to his discovery requests.

For context, Anderson filed two interlocutory appeals from orders relating to discovery issues in this matter. Anderson filed the first notice of appeal on December 27, 2021, [DE 91], and the second on January 6, 2022 [DE 96]. Those appeals divested the Court of jurisdiction to act in matters involving the merits of the appeal. See Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982). As such, the Court stayed this matter on December 28, 2021. [DE 93]. That stay remained pending until March 24, 2022, when Anderson's second appeal was dismissed.[1] [DE 112]. Thereafter, the Court entered a Revised Scheduling Order on April 1, 2022, resetting all deadlines. [DE 113].

Defendants filed a response to Anderson's motion to compel on May 16, 2022, asserting that they responded to each discovery request that formed the basis of Anderson's motion to compel. [DE 120]. Specifically, Defendants state that they received Anderson's discovery requests during the time in which this case was stayed, [Id. at Page ID# 1355], and that they began answering those requests when the Court entered the Revised Scheduling Order on April 1, 2022. [Id.]. Defendants state that they responded to each of Anderson's discovery requests by certified mail on either May 2 or 3, 2022. [Id. at 1355-56].

Then, on June 1, 2022, Defendants filed a Notice of Filing, stating that their responses to Anderson's Fifth and Sixth Sets of Requests for Production of Documents were returned as undeliverable because they were inadvertently sent to Anderson's last federal facility address. [DE 121]. Defendants asserted that they sent additional copies of those discovery responses to Anderson via certified mail at his current address on the same day they filed their Notice. [Id.].

*2 Thereafter, Anderson filed both a Motion to Object to Defendants’ Response on June 3, 2022, [DE 122], and a Motion to Object to Defendants’ Notice of Filing on June 21, 2022, [DE 125]. In both motions, Anderson refutes Defendant's claims that they had responded to Anderson's discovery requests. [DE 125, Page ID# 1432-33; DE 122, Page ID# 1360-61].

However, Defendants filed a Response to Motion to Object on June 24, 2022, in which they asserted that they had responded to each of Anderson's discovery requests and attached copies of each response. [DEs 129 at Page ID# 1473, 129-1, 129-2, 129-3, 129-4, and 129-5]. Defendants also stated that they were again mailing copies of each response to Anderson out of an abundance of caution. [DE 129, Page ID# 1473-74]. Moreover, Defendants also filed a Response to Motion to Object to Defendants’ Notice of Filing on July 8, 2022, again stating that they had sent, and the U.S. Postal Service had indicated that Anderson received, responses to all outstanding discovery requests. [DE 135].

Anderson has not responded to Defendants’ July 24, 2022, or July 7, 2022, assertions that they have sent, and Anderson has received, responses to all outstanding discovery requests. The Court is left to assume that Anderson has now received responses to the requests at issue in his motion. The Court thus denies Anderson's Motion to Compel [DE 118], which it deems moot on this record.

B. MOTION TO OBJECT TO DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE [DE 122] AND MOTION TO OBJECT TO DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OF FILING [DE 125]

As previously mentioned, Defendants filed a Response to Anderson's Motion to Compel on May 16, 2022, notifying the Court that they had responded to all outstanding discovery requests. [DE 120]. Defendants also filed a Notice of Filing on June 1, 2022, notifying the Court that their responses to Anderson's Fifth and Sixth Sets of Requests for Production of Documents were returned as undeliverable because they were inadvertently sent to Anderson's last federal facility address. [DE 121]. Defendants asserted that they had served additional copies of those discovery responses to Anderson's current address. [Id.].

Anderson filed a both a Motion to Object to Defendant's Response [DE 122] and a Motion to Object to Defendants’ Notice of Filing [DE 125]. In both motions, Anderson asserts that he has not received responses to his discovery requests, and he again requests that the Court compel disclosure of the requested material. [DE 122 at Page ID# 1361; DE 125 at Page ID# 1433].

However, as noted above, Defendant's filed a response to both motions, asserting that they had served responses to each discovery requests and that they were again mailing copies of each response to Anderson out of an abundance of caution. [DE 129 at Page ID# 1473-74; DE 135]. Defendants also attached copies of their discovery responses. [See DEs 129-1, 129-2, 129-3, 129-4, and 129-5].

The Court will deny both of Anderson's motions to object. [DEs 122 and 125]. To the extent those motions again seek to compel responses to the discovery requests that formed the basis of Anderson's Motion to Compel [DE 118], the Court will deny that request for the reasons stated above. Defendants assert that they have sent, and Anderson has received, responses to Anderson's discovery requests, and they have provided copies of their responses. Anderson has not responded to these assertions. Moreover, to the extent Anderson's motions object to some assertions in Defendants’ responses,[2] Anderson does not clearly request that the Court take any action. As such, the Court is unable to grant any relief.

*3 For the reasons discussed, the Court ORDERS as follows:

The undersigned enters this Order on non-dispositive pretrial matters pursuant to Rule 72(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). A party may serve and file objections to this Order, to be considered by the District Judge, within 14 days after being served with a copy.