Davis v. Boome et al

Filing 17

ORDER directing Clerk not to authorize service and advising plaintiff to notify Clerk in writing of any change of address. Plaintiff has incurred a debt to the U.S.A. in the amount of $350.00. Motions denied: 11 MOTION for Hearing filed by Mildenzel Malcolm Davis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 4/24/2014. (abuc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Mildenzel Malcom Davis, Plaintiff, vs. Director Kenny Boome; Maj. Norris; Cpt. Brunson; and Lt. Browne, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No.: 1:14-722-TLW-SVH ORDER This is a civil action filed by a local prisoner. Therefore, in the event that a limitations issue arises, Plaintiff shall have the benefit of the holding in Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (prisoner’s pleading was filed at the moment of delivery to prison authorities for forwarding to District Court). Under Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), pretrial proceedings in this action have been referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge. On March 24, 2014, the court allowed Plaintiff an opportunity to provide the service documents necessary to bring this case into proper form. [Entry #8]. Plaintiff complied with the order and this case is now in proper form. Plaintiff has filed a motion for a hearing in his case. [Entry #11]. As the case has not yet been served and a Report and Recommendation has issued recommending the case be summarily dismissed, Plaintiff’s motion is denied as premature. TO THE CLERK OF COURT: This case is subject to summary dismissal based on an initial screening conducted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Therefore, the Clerk of Court shall not issue the summons or forward this matter to the United States Marshal for service of process at this time. IT IS SO ORDERED. April 24, 2014 Columbia, South Carolina Shiva V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?