Branham v. Bryant et al

Filing 59

ORDER directing Defendants' counsel to file a notice with the court indicating whether or not counsel can and will waive formal service of process and enter an appearance on behalf of Defendant John A. Clark. ( Waiver of Service and Notice of Appearance due by 4/19/2012) Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 4/5/2012. (jpet, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
James M. Branham,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Sheriff Bruce M. Bryant, and
John A. Clark, both sued in their
individual capacities,
Defendants.

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

C/A No.: 1:11-1246-JFA-SVH

ORDER

This is a civil action filed by a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis. Under
Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), pretrial proceedings in this action have been
referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge.
This order is issued because of Plaintiff’s provision of service documents
identifying the Defendant who was originally called “John Doe” as “John A. Clark.”
Plaintiff states on his Form USM-285 that Clark is a “deputy at York County Sheriffs
Dept.” [Entry #37, #57]. The defendant who was originally named and who has appeared
in this case through counsel is the Sheriff of York County, Bruce M. Bryant. Under the
circumstances, it is reasonable to assume, though not a certainty, that because counsel
answered for “purported Defendant ‘John Doe,’” as well as for Defendant Bryant, [Entry
#20], current defense counsel will also be employed to represent the now-identified “John
Doe” defendant: John A. Clark.
Unless the formal issuance of process and personal service for Defendant John A.
Clark is waived, this case will necessarily be delayed and require additional expenditure
of court resources through the time and effort required to enlist the assistance of the
United States Marshal Service to personally serve Defendant John A. Clark. Such delay
and expenditure of resources would be reduced if current defense counsel can waive
formal service of process and enter an appearance on behalf of Defendant John A. Clark.
TO DEFENSE COUNSEL:
Current counsel for Defendants is granted until April 19, 2012, in which file a
notice with the court indicating whether or not counsel can and will waive formal service
of process and enter an appearance on behalf of Defendant John A. Clark.

TO THE CLERK OF COURT:
The Clerk of Court is directed that if defense counsel files a notice indicating that
service of process is waived on behalf of Defendant John A. Clark, then this case shall
proceed in the usual course.
However, if current Defendants’ counsel files a notice indicating that Clark does
not waive formal issuance of process and service, then this case should be returned to the
undersigned for further consideration.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

April 5, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2