THOMAS V. SOUTH CAROLINA, ET AL.

Filing 22

ORDER directing Clerk not to authorize service and advising plaintiff to notify Clerk in writing of any change of address. Plaintiff has incurred a debt to the U.S.A. Motion granted in part: 19 Motion and Demand for SC District Court to read correspondence concerning 0:14-4903-DCN-PJG filed by Charles Edward Thomas. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J Gossett on 2/20/2015. (gmil)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Charles Edward Thomas,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
South Carolina Department of Corrections; Jon )
Ozmint, Former Prison Director; Medical
)
Division; Budget Control; Financial Division; )
South Carolina Local Government, In their
)
individual and official capacities,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 0:14-4903-DCN-PJG

ORDER

This is a civil action filed by a state prisoner. Therefore, in the event that a limitations issue
arises, Plaintiff shall have the benefit of the holding in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988)
(prisoner’s pleading was filed at the moment of delivery to prison authorities for forwarding to
District Court). Plaintiff originally filed the Complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, which transferred the action to this court. (ECF No. 6.) Under Local Civil
Rule 73.02(B)(2) DSC, pretrial proceedings in this action have been referred to the assigned United
States Magistrate Judge.
MOTION AND DEMAND:
Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 19) directs the court’s attention to correspondence in this case,
and to Plaintiff’s appeal of an order issued in a prior civil action filed in this court. See Thomas v.
South Carolina Dep’t of Corr., C/A No. 0:14-302-DCN (D.S.C. Feb. 5, 2014). As the court has
reviewed the information referenced by Plaintiff, his motion shall be granted in part. (ECF No. 19.)
To the extent Plaintiff demands any other action by the court, the motion is denied.
TO THE CLERK OF COURT:
This case is subject to summary dismissal based on Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this case.
Therefore, the Clerk of Court shall not issue the summonses or forward this matter to the United
States Marshal for service of process at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 20, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

___________________________________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE