Garrett v. Stirling et al

Filing 29

ORDER granting 15 motion for extension of time to the extent that Plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from entry of this order to file anything further he wishes the court to consider as objections to the 10 Report an d Recommendation or on appeal of the Order severing the cases. (Objections to R&R due by 7/26/2018. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. ) Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 6/26/2018. (bgoo)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ROCK HILL DIVISION
Robert Louis Garrett, Jr.,

Civil Action No. 0:18-cv-1309-CMC-PJG
Plaintiff,

vs.

ORDER

Director Bryan P. Stirling, et al.,
Defendants.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging violations of his constitutional rights. ECF No. 1. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02 (B)(2)(d), D.S.C., the matter was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Paige J. Gossett for pre-trial proceedings. On May 24, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report recommending summary dismissal without prejudice and without issuance and service of
process as to the claims against many of the seventy-seven named Defendants.1 ECF No. 10. The
same day, the Magistrate Judge filed an Order finding Plaintiff’s Complaint
raises claims concerning at least five separate incidents that took place between
April 2015 and May 2016. All of the incidents involve Plaintiff’s claims of
excessive force during his incarceration at three separate South Carolina
Department of Corrections (“SCDC”) facilities; however, other than the nature of
the claim, the incidents appear to be wholly unrelated.
ECF No. 11. Therefore, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff’s claims severed into four separate
cases, with four civil action numbers. Id. Plaintiff was also issued a proper form order. ECF No.
12.

1

The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff of the procedures and requirements for filing objections
to the Report and the serious consequences if he failed to do so.

On June 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for copies at no expense, requesting “one free
‘time-stamped’ copy” of the initial complaint with attached “important exhibits.” ECF No. 14.
The same day he also filed a motion for extension of time to file objections to the Report, noting
he needed to receive his free copies before he could formulate his objections. ECF No. 15. On
June 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend/correct the Complaint and for permissive joinder
of parties (ECF No. 17); a motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Order (ECF No.
11) severing the case and of the Report (ECF No. 10) recommending dismissal of certain
Defendants (ECF No. 18); and a motion to alter or amend the Order and Report (ECF No. 19).
The Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff’s motion for copies on June 11, 2018, finding Plaintiff’s in
forma pauperis status does not except him from paying costs of copying documents.
Plaintiff is hereby notified the court will consider his motion for reconsideration and to
alter or amend as objections to the Report, and as an appeal of the Order severing the cases.2
Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 15) is granted to the extent he shall have thirty
days from entry of this Order to file anything further he wishes the court to consider as objections
to the Report or on appeal of the Order severing the cases.

2

These two motions, ECF Nos. 18 and 19, are no longer referred to the Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff’s motion to amend the Complaint, ECF No. 17, remains referred to the Magistrate Judge.
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Cameron McGowan Currie
CAMERON MCGOWAN CURRIE
Senior United States District Judge
Columbia, South Carolina
June 26, 2018

3