Epting v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al

Filing 83

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 71 Motion to Amend. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett on 11/9/2018. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Betty Frances Taylor Epting, as Personal
)
Representative of the Estate of Thomas Edgar )
Taylor, Sr,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
South Carolina Department of Corrections;
)
Minnie Macon; Arthur Butler; Linda McNutt; )
Aaron Pellum,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

C/A No. 0:16-3172-DCC-PJG

ORDER

Plaintiff Betty Frances Taylor Epting filed this action in her role of personal representative
of the estate of Thomas Edgar Taylor pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging a violation of Taylor’s
constitutional rights. This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s motion to amend the Amended
Complaint. (ECF No. 71.) The defendants filed a response in opposition. (ECF No. 76.)
Plaintiff’s proposed Second Amended Complaint seeks to add a seventh cause of action
against a new defendant, Dr. Mohan Sridaran, the prison psychiatrist who treated Plaintiff’s
decedent’s assailant. The defendants oppose the motion on the grounds that it is untimely,
prejudicial, and futile. Based on the parties’ filings, the court cannot say without additional briefing
on the applicable substantive law that the amendment is futile. In light of the imminent statute of
limitations deadline of November 15, 2018 (according to Plaintiff’s calculation) to assert a claim
against Dr. Sridaran, the court hereby grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (ECF No. 71) without
prejudice to the defendants’ right to file a motion to dismiss the claim against Dr. Sridaran for failure

Page 1 of 2

to state a claim upon which relief can be granted if they so elect, including but not limited to briefing
as to whether Dr. Sridaran owed any duty to Plaintiff’s decedent.
As to timeliness, Plaintiff asserts that it was not until Dr. Sridaran’s deposition testimony that
this claim was apparent. See Nourison Rug Corp. v. Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295, 298 (4th Cir. 2008)
(“[A]fter the deadlines provided by a scheduling order have passed, the good cause standard must
be satisfied to justify leave to amend the pleadings.”). Additionally, the court observes that the
dispositive motions deadline has not yet passed, so Dr. Sridaran can move for summary judgment
at the same time as the other defendants, and that Dr. Sridaran’s deposition has already been taken,
indicating that discovery need not be reopened for this claim. The court therefore declines to deny
the motion on the grounds of untimeliness or prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
November 9, 2018
Columbia, South Carolina

Page 2 of 2