Garrett v. Stirling et al

Filing 297

ORDER denying Garrett's Rule 56(d) request in his 296 affidavit. Further, Garrett shall advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with this claims and to file a response to the defendants' 272 motion f or summary judgment on or before May 29,2020. The plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, his complaint will be recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Response to Motion due by 5/29/2020. 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 Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett on 5/15/2020. (mmcd) Modified on 5/15/2020 to edit docket text (mmcd).

0:18-cv-01309-CMC-PJG

Date Filed 05/15/20

Entry Number 297

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Robert Louis Garrett, Jr.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Franklin Richardson; Rogers; and McBride,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 0:18-1309-CMC-PJG

ORDER

The plaintiff, Robert Louis Garrett, Jr., a self-represented state inmate, has filed this action
seeking relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights by the
named defendants. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on February 12, 2020,
pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 272.) As the plaintiff is proceeding
pro se, the court entered an order pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir. 1975),
on February 13, 2020, advising the plaintiff of the importance of a motion for summary judgment
and of the need for him to file an adequate response. (ECF No. 273.) The plaintiff was specifically
advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the defendants’ motion may be granted, thereby
ending his case.
On February 24, 2020, Garrett moved for an extension of time, alleging that he had not
received the defendants’ summary judgment motion. (ECF No. 277.) The defendants re-served
their motion, and on March 12, 2020, the court extended Garrett’s response deadline until April
15, 2020. (ECF No. 283.) The court specifically warned Garrett that failure to comply may result
in dismissal of his Complaint for failure to prosecute. (Id.); Davis v. Williams, 588 F.2d 69, 70
(4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b).

Page 1 of 4

0:18-cv-01309-CMC-PJG

Date Filed 05/15/20

Entry Number 297

Page 2 of 4

On March 16, 2020, the court issued Standing Order, Misc. No. 3:20-mc-105, that extended
the plaintiff’s deadline by twenty-one days due to the current public health emergency regarding
COVID-19, making Garrett’s response deadline May 6, 2020. Despite this extension of time and
notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions set forth in the court’s Roseboro order,
Garrett has failed to respond to the motion.
Instead, on May 6, 2020, 1 Garrett filed an affidavit pursuant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure in which he essentially argues that he is not able to respond to the
defendants’ summary judgment motion because of the defendants’ refusal to turn over certain
documents during the course of discovery. (ECF No. 296.) He further argues that these documents
are essential to proving and substantiating his claims, and he attaches the relevant requests for
production. (ECF Nos. 296 & 296-1.)
“The Court may defer considering a motion for summary judgment ‘[i]f a nonmovant
shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to
justify its opposition.’ ” Keith v. Cartledge, C/A No. 1:13-1131-RMG, 2014 WL 3867838, at *1
(D.S.C. Aug. 6, 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)). “To be successful on a Rule 56(d) request,
a party must provide specific reasons why discovery was necessary and identify information that
he believes would be adduced at discovery.” Id. (citing Mercer v. Arc of Prince Georges Cty.,
Inc., 532 F. App’x 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2013)). Summary judgment should be denied or deferred
where “the nonmoving party has not had the opportunity to discover information that is essential
to his opposition.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 n.5 (1986) (discussing
Rule 56(f)—the precursor to Rule 56(d)). “However, if the nonmoving party has not been diligent

1

See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (stating that a prisoner’s pleading is filed at
the moment of delivery to prison authorities for forwarding to the district court).
Page 2 of 4

0:18-cv-01309-CMC-PJG

Date Filed 05/15/20

Entry Number 297

Page 3 of 4

in pursuing discovery or if additional discovery will not create a genuine issue of material fact, a
Rule 56(d) motion is properly denied.” Keith, 2014 WL 3867838, at *1 (citing White v. BFI Waste
Servs., LLC, 375 F.3d 288, 295 n.2 (4th Cir. 2004); Strag v. Bd. of Trustees, Craven Cmty. Coll.,
55 F.3d 943, 954 (4th Cir. 1995)); see also Crumb v. McDonald’s Corp., C/A No. DKC 15-1719,
2017 WL 6055501, at *3 (D. Md. Dec. 6, 2017) (denying the plaintiff’s motion to deny or defer
summary judgment because the plaintiff “had the opportunity to pursue such discovery within the
limits of the rules and within the discovery period set by the court’s scheduling order”).
Review of the docket shows that Garrett has had ample opportunity to obtain the requested
documents during the normal course of discovery in this matter. 2 Garrett was clearly capable of
filing a motion to compel with regard to the defendants’ stated objections as to the documents at
issue, but failed to properly and timely avail himself of this option. In fact, the court gave Garrett
multiple extensions of time as to the discovery deadline in this case and even allowed Garrett to
re-serve discovery responses and file a renewed motion to compel, as his previous motions to
compel were improper and/or untimely.

(See Order, ECF No. 226.)

Although Garrett

subsequently filed a motion to compel as to some of the requests at issue, his motion alleged that
he hadn’t received any responses to his requests for production; however, the defendants’ response
demonstrated that the responses had been timely served but that Garrett had yet to receive them
through the mail at the time he filed his motion. (See Order, ECF No. 253.) Thus, it is clear from
the record that Garrett did not properly file any motion to compel with regard to the documents he
now alleges the defendants did not produce to him. Because Garrett did not avail himself of the
remedies provided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for obtaining these documents during
the discovery period, the court cannot say that Garrett has been diligent in pursuing the discovery

2

The discovery period ended on September 25, 2019.
Page 3 of 4

0:18-cv-01309-CMC-PJG

Date Filed 05/15/20

Entry Number 297

Page 4 of 4

he now seeks. Accordingly, the court sees no basis for deferring consideration of the defendants’
summary judgment motion. 3
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Garrett’s Rule 56(d) request is denied. It is further
ORDERED that Garrett shall advise the court as to whether he wishes to continue with his
claims and to file a response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on or before May
29, 2020.

Plaintiff is further advised that if he fails to respond, his Complaint will be

recommended for dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute. See Davis v. Williams,
588 F.2d 69, 70 (4th Cir. 1978); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). No further extensions of this deadline
will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

May 15, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina

__________________________________________
Paige J. Gossett
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Moreover, although Garrett generally states that the documents he seeks will “prove that
[the South Carolina Department of Corrections] had a custom of subjecting their Mental Health
Residents to cruel and unusual punishment, long stays in solitary confinement[,] and various forms
of excessive/unnecessary force,” it is not readily apparent that obtaining these documents would
create a genuine issue of material fact with regard to Garrett’s claims.
Page 4 of 4