Smyth v. Urch et al

Filing 130

ORDER - Plaintiff's objections 123 to the Magistrate Judge's order are without merit. Accordingly, the Order 118 is AFFIRMED. Signed by Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 3/3/2015. (gmil) Modified to edit docket text on 3/3/2015 (gmil).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Keith Adger Smyth,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Major Neal Urch; PREA Amandy )
Blanton; William J. Church; Deputy )
J. Brock; Deputy K. Ashley,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Civil Action No.: 0:14-cv-3476-RBH-PJG

ORDER

Plaintiff Keith Adger Smyth (“Plaintiff”), a state pretrial detainee proceeding pro se, filed
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 28, 2014. See Compl., ECF No. 1; Am. Compl.,
ECF No. 13. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s objections, see ECF no. 123, to an Order
of the Magistrate Judge denying numerous motions filed by Plaintiff over the course of this
litigation, see Order, ECF No. 118.1 Plaintiff styles his objections as an “appeal” of the Magistrate
Judge’s Order.2

1

The Magistrate Judge’s order denied the following of Plaintiff’s motions: Motion Full Disclosure
(ECF No. 26), Motion Retain All Legal Documents (ECF No. 27), Motion Right to Purchase
Supplies (ECF No. 28), Motion To Be Treated Equally and Rehoused in Another Pod (ECF No.
29), Motion To Receive All Plaintiff's Unopened Mail (ECF No. 37), Motion for issuance of
Subpoena (ECF No. 43), Motion to receive unopened mail (ECF No. 47), Motion for Discovery
(ECF No. 49), Motion for issuance of Subpoena (ECF No. 60), Motion for issuance of Subpoena
(ECF No. 61), Motion for issuance of Subpoena (ECF No. 62), Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 65),
Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 66), Motion to Amend/Correct (ECF No. 68), Motion for US
Marshals to be guards (ECF No. 72), Motion for Default Judgment as to Neal Urch, J. Brock, K.
Ashley (ECF No. 74), Motion for issuance of Subpoena (ECF No. 76), Motion to Amend/Correct
(ECF No. 78), Motion for Discovery (ECF No. 82), Motion for DHEC investigation of Spartanburg
County Detention Facility (ECF No. 90), Motion to Amend/Correct (ECF No. 91), Motion to keep
more than 3 inches of legal mail (ECF No. 96), Motion for inspection of jail (ECF No. 99), Motion
to keep more than 3 inches of legal mail in cell (ECF No. 100), Motion for US Marshals to be
guards and for technology and Motion for Default Judgment as to Neal Urch, J. Brock, K. Ashley
and Motion for issuance of Subpoena (ECF No. 101), Motion to get requested copies of documents

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In her Order, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motions to amend the complaint as
either futile or untimely. See ECF No. 118 at 1–2. The Magistrate Judge also denied Plaintiff’s
requests to have the court conduct/order investigations or security, as it is inappropriate for this
Court to order such relief. See id. at 2. Next, the Magistrate Judge denied each of Plaintiff’s
motions for discovery, noting that absent a dispute, the Court does not typically enter the discovery
process. See id. The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff that he need not receive the Court’s
specific authorization in order to serve discovery on Defendants. See id. The Magistrate Judge
noted that only one of the discovery motions appears to seek to compel discovery, and that
Defendants responded noting that they had not even been properly served with any discovery
request. See id. at 3. Thus, the Magistrate Judge also denied this motion.
Next, the Magistrate Judge turned to Plaintiff’s motions to serve the Defendants and found
those as moot, noting that Defendants have already been served. See id. The Magistrate Judge then
turned to Plaintiff’s various motions which mirror the allegations raised in the complaint, and noted
that Plaintiff may not circuitously attempt to obtain the relief sought in the complaint. See id.

(ECF No. 106), Motion to Stay (ECF No. 109), Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No. 111), Motion
for relief from discipline and Motion for Mental Examination (ECF No. 112), Motion for DHEC
Inspection (ECF No. 113).
The Magistrate Judge then denied as futile Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend/Correct (ECF No.
41). Furthermore, the Magistrate Judge denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion to Request
technology (ECF No. 77), Motion for issuance of Subpoena (ECF No. 93), Motion for Hearing
(ECF No. 96), and Motion for Hearing (ECF No. 117). The Magistrate Judge also terminated as
moot Plaintiff’s Motion to Serve Defendants (ECF No. 36) and Motion to Serve Defendants (ECF
No. 48). Finally, the Magistrate Judge granted in part Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time
(ECF No. 98), Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 103), and Motion for Extension of Time
(ECF No. 106).
2

Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that a party may submit objections to a
Magistrate Judge’s ruling on non-dispositive matters. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). The Court
construes Plaintiff’s filing as such.
2

Moreover, the Magistrate Judge noted that Plaintiff must file a separate action if he wants to raise
new allegations or claims. See id. Accordingly, those motions were denied as well. The Magistrate
Judge then denied Plaintiff’s motion to appoint counsel. See id. at 3–4. Finally, the Magistrate
Judge granted in part Plaintiff’s motions requesting extensions or to stay case, finding that the
discovery period should be extended to February 11, 2015 and the motions deadline to March 20,
2015. See id. at 4.
Plaintiff objected to this Order, asserting that the Magistrate Judge improperly denied his
motions. He asserts that the Magistrate Judge did not properly examine his filings and is not
looking closely at the documents he filed. See ECF No. 123 at 1–2. Plaintiff also contends that
Defendants have denied him “law research.” See id. at 1. Next, Plaintiff asserts that some papers
he sent to the court were torn and damaged, and that the jail has locked him out of kiosk grievances.
See id. at 1–2. Plaintiff also contends that “defendants is [sic] not giving me the right help when I
file documents to this case.” Id. He claims that the Magistrate Judge “will not grant any of [his]
motions” and that she is not taking the time to consider his motions. See id. He asserts that another
Judge needs to take time on the case. See id. Finally, he requests that his lawsuit be “removed from
state court and transferred to the federal building.” See id. at 3.
APPLICABLE LAW
Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to submit objections to a
Magistrate Judge’s ruling on non-dispositive matters, such as discovery orders. Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(a); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). As a non-dispositive matter, the review of a Magistrate
Judge’s discovery order is governed by the “clearly erroneous” or “contrary to law” standard of
review. Id.

3

Only if a magistrate judge’s decision is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law” may a District
Judge modify or set aside any portion of the decision. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A). A court’s “finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when although there is evidence to support
it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a
mistake has been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948); see
also Harman v. Levin, 772 F.2d 1150, 1152 (4th Cir. 1985). “Although the ‘contrary to law’
standard permits plenary review of legal conclusions, decisions related to discovery disputes and
scheduling are accorded greater deference.” Stonecrest Partners, LLC v. Bank of Hampton Roads,
770 F. Supp. 2d 778, 782 (E.D.N.C. 2011). “In light of the broad discretion given to a magistrate
judge in the resolution of nondispositive discovery disputes, the court should only overrule a
magistrate judge’s determination if this discretion is abused.” Weber v. Jones, No. 8:12–3349–
TMC, 2014 WL 1094418, at *1 (D.S.C. Mar. 18, 2014) (quoting Shoop v. Hott, No. 5:08CV188,
2010 WL 5067567, at *2 (N.D.W. Va. Dec. 6, 2010)).
DISCUSSION
Plaintiff’s argument in his objections is essentially that the Magistrate Judge denied his
motions without properly reviewing and considering them. Plaintiff, however, has not argued that
the Magistrate Judge’s decisions were clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Plaintiff provides no
support for his contention that the Magistrate Judge improperly denied his motions aside from his
own subjective view that she did not sufficiently review his filings.
Nevertheless, the Court has thoroughly reviewed the record, including Plaintiff’s motions,
the Magistrate Judge’s Order denying Plaintiff’s motions, Plaintiff’s appeal, and applicable law.
The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge properly exercised her discretion in denying Plaintiff’s
motions. The Magistrate Judge’s decisions were neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.

4

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order are without
merit. Accordingly, the Order, ECF No. 118, is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ R. Bryan Harwell
R. Bryan Harwell
United States District Judge
Florence, South Carolina
March 3, 2015

5