Ridley v. McGill et al

Filing 27

ORDER denying 23 MOTION to Compel filed by Richard David Ridley. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 8/25/2015. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Richard David Ridley, #285091,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Mr. John McGill; Warden Stevenson;
Mrs. Holly Scaturo; and Mrs. Kimberly
Poholchuk,
Defendants.

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

C/A No.: 1:15-1612-SB-SVH

ORDER

Richard David Riley (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of his constitutional rights by
John McGill, Director of South Carolina Department of Mental Health; Warden
Stevenson of Broad River Correctional Institution; Holly Scaturo, Director of the
Sexually Violent Predator Treatment Program (“SVPTP”); and Kimberly Poholchuk,
Deputy Director of the SVPTP (collectively “Defendants”). This matter comes before the
court on Plaintiff’s motion to compel [ECF No. 23].
In his motion to compel, Plaintiff states that he served requests for production on
Defendants on June 26, 2015, and Defendants responded on July 27, 2015. [ECF No. 23
at 1]. Plaintiff alleges Defendants objected to all of his requests. Id. Defendants attached
their discovery responses to their opposition to the motion to compel. [ECF No. 26-3]. A
review of the discovery responses indicates that although Defendants objected to the
requests, they provided documents to Plaintiff subject to many of the objections. Plaintiff

has provided no argument as to what additional information he believes he is entitled that
Defendants failed to provide. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied as to his
discovery requests served June 26, 2015.
Plaintiff also seeks responses to discovery requests he served July 23 and 30,
2015. Id. at 2–3. Defendants argue that such requests were untimely under the scheduling
order, which states “Discovery shall be completed no later than August 11, 2015. All
discovery requests, including subpoenas duces tecum, shall be served in time for the
responses thereto to be served by this date.” [ECF No. 19]. Because Plaintiff failed to
serve his July 23 and 30, 2015, discovery requests in time for Defendants to serve
responses by August 11, such requests were untimely. Plaintiff’s motion to compel is
therefore denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 25, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2