Hood v. Byars et al

Filing 41

ORDER denying as moot 36 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 12/4/2013.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Monterio Lamarcus Hood,
Plaintiff,
vs.
William R. Byars, Jr., Director of
SCDC; Robert E. Ward, Director of
Operations; Dennis R. Patterson Sr.,
Regional Director; Michael D. McCall,
Warden of Lee CI; NFN Greer, Chief
Investigator; Robert M. Stevenson, III,
Warden of Broad River CI; Dennis
Bush, Assc. Warden; Gregory Pack,
Captain; and NFN Estes, Investigator,
Defendants.

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

C/A No.: 1:13-1098-DCN-SVH

ORDER

Monterio Lamarcus Hood (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate incarcerated at the Broad
River Correctional Institution (“BRCI”), a facility of the South Carolina Department of
Corrections (“SCDC”). He brings this civil rights action, pro se and in forma pauperis,
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights by the
following defendants: SCDC Director William Byars; SCDC Director of Operations
Robert E. Ward; SCDC Regional Director Dennis R. Patterson; Lee Correctional
Institution (“LCI”) Warden Michael McCall; SCDC Investigator Greer; BRCI Warden
Robert M. Stevenson; BRCI Associate Warden Dennis Bush; BRCI Captain Gregory
Pack; and BRCI Investigator Estes (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiff alleged
Defendants violated his due process rights when they held him in investigative detention
in the Special Management Unit (“SMU”) without notice and a hearing. [Entry #1].

This matter comes before the court on Defendants’ motion to compel [Entry #36].
All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.).
In their motion to compel, Defendants argue Plaintiff’s discovery responses dated
August 28, 2013 [Entry #36-1] and October 10, 2013 [Entry #36-2] are improper,
incomplete, and evasive and should be treated as a failure to respond. Plaintiff filed a
response clarifying and supplementing his responses to the discovery. [Entry #37].
Defendants did not file a reply indicating that they believed Plaintiff’s clarified and
supplemented responses were deficient. Therefore, Defendants’ motion to compel is
denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 4, 2013
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2