Rieb v. Stevenson et al

Filing 82

ORDER denying the motion to overturn the Magistrate Judge's decision, and Plaintiff's 81 Appeal of Magistrate Judge Decision to District Court is denied. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 4/20/2012. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

Eric Andrew Rieb,
Plaintiff,

)

Warden Robert M. Stevenson, III; Lt.
Edward Hambrick; and Capt. Percy Jones,
Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 1:11-cv-425-RMG

)
)

)
)

vs.

1011 APR 20 P 12: 23

ORDER

)
)
)
)
)
)

----------------------------------)
Plaintiff Eric Andrew Rieb, currently an inmate at Broad River Correctional Institution,
brings this action pro se and in forma pauperis. In his complaint, Plaintiff alleges violations of
his rights pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. (Dkt. No.1). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)
and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) and (e) DSC, this matter was referred to the United States
Magistrate Judge for all pretrial proceedings. On February 13,2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for
an extension of time requesting that the Court extend all deadlines of the Court's present
scheduling order by approximately four months. (Dkt. No. 65). On March 1, 2012, Defendants
filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff's motion. (Dkt. No. 69). On March 15, 2012, the
Magistrate Judge issued a Text Order denying Plaintiff's motion. (Dkt. No. 72). On April 17,
2012, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Application for Interlocutory Appeal," in which
Plaintiff requests that this Court find that the Magistrate Judge's decision to deny Plaintiff's
motion for an extension of time was clearly erroneous. (Dkt. No. 81).
Title 28, subsection 636(b)(1)(A) of the United States Code provides that this Court may
designate a Magistrate Judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the Court,

subject to certain exceptions not applicable here. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(1). This subsection also
provides: "A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A)
where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to
law." Id. The Court has considered Plaintiff's and Defendants' arguments, and the Court finds
that the Magistrate Judge's decision to deny Plaintiffs motion for an extension of time was not
clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Thus, the Court denies the motion to overturn the

Magistrate Judge's decision, and Plaintiffs appeal is denied. (Dkt. No. 81).

Ric rd Mark Gerg
United States District Court Judge
ApriU&,2012
Charleston, South Carolina

2