McKeown v. County of Greenville et al

Filing 141

ORDER finding as moot 114 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 117 Motion for pretrial conference; finding as moot 118 Motion for copies; finding as moot 119 Motion to Amend/Correct; finding as moot 127 Motion for copies. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 10/7/2011.(mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Michael Anthony McKeown,
Plaintiff,
vs.
County of Greenville, Joseph Kernell,
John C. Few, C. Denton Matthews, Skip
Goldsmith, S.C. Department of
Corrections, Jon E. Ozmint, and its
Insurers,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:10-1441-RBH-SVH

ORDER

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, is currently incarcerated in the custody of the South
Carolina Department of Corrections (“SCDC”).

He alleges

violations of his

constitutional rights, which are construed as brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before
the court are the following motions: (1) Plaintiff’s motions to amend his complaint
[Entry #114, #119]; (2) Plaintiff’s motion for a pretrial conference [Entry #117]; and (3)
Plaintiff’s motions for copies [Entry #118, #127]. All pretrial proceedings in this case
were referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to the provisions of Local
Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.).
I.

Plaintiff’s motions to amend the complaint and motions for copies
Plaintiff’s motions to amend his amended complaint seek the court to add

paragraphs 15 and 16 to his amended complaint, which are missing in the originallydocketed Amended Complaint. However, since Plaintiff filed his motions to amend, the
Clerk of Court has filed a corrective entry indicating it inadvertently failed to scan the

page containing paragraphs 15 and 16 of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint when it was
received. [Entry #133]. The Clerk’s office also docketed the corrected version of the
amended complaint. [Entry #132]. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions to amend the complaint
[Entry #114, #119] are now moot.
In his motions for copies, Plaintiff requests that he be provided a copy of the
amended complaint as originally docketed. However, contemporaneously with filing its
corrective entry discussed above, the Clerk’s office mailed Plaintiff a copy of both the
original docket entry for the amended complaint and the corrected version. [Entry #134].
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motions for copies [Entry #118, #127] are also now moot.1
II.

Plaintiff’s motion for a pretrial conference
Plaintiff requests a pretrial conference to narrow this issues in the case. However,

Plaintiff provides no specific examples of issues which could be simplified or narrowed
through a pretrial conference, and instead simply supplemented his motion with a
recitation of the allegations of the Amended Complaint. [Entry #126]. Because Plaintiff
has provided no specific ways in which a pretrial conference would narrow the issues in
this matter, his request for a pretrial conference [Entry #117] is denied.

1

To the extent Plaintiff has submitted additional questions to the court in Entry
#127, this court cannot provide Plaintiff with legal advice.
2

III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons the following motions: Plaintiff’s motions to amend his

complaint [Entry #114, #119] and motions for copies [Entry #118, #127] are moot and
Plaintiff’s motion for a pretrial conference [Entry #117] is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 7, 2011
Florence, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

3