Bradley v. Sterling et al

Filing 52

ORDER denying 51 MOTION for issuance of Subpoena filed by Freddie Bradley. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 12/20/2016. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Freddie Bradley,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Bryan Sterling, SCDC Director;
Neana W. Staley, Warden at
Manning; Mr. Roberts, A/W at
Manning; Ms. Jeannie McKay, A/W
at Manning; and Dr. Valpey, SCDC
Doctor,
Defendants.

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

C/A No.: 1:15-4440-RBH-SVH

ORDER

Freddie Bradley (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought
this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights.
All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.). This
matter comes before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for subpoenas [ECF No. 51].
In his motion, Plaintiff requests the court subpoena: (1) statements of Officers
Raymond and LaBeru on January 4, 2016; (2) a request to Warden Staley on July 31,
2016 and the response; and (3) a request to Warden Staley on July 14, 2015 and its
response. [ECF No 51 at 2]. It appears such requests would be properly served on
Defendants as requests for production. Regardless of how they are characterized,
Plaintiff’s motion is untimely. Plaintiff filed his motion for subpoenas on December 15,
2016. The scheduling order in this case states “Discovery shall be completed no later than

April 19, 2016. All discovery requests, including subpoenas duces tecum, shall be served
in time for the responses thereto to be served by this date.” [ECF No. 22] (emphasis in
original).
Additionally, on May 5, 2016, the court previously denied Plaintiff’s motion for
the subpoena of unspecified documents, noting that he had not provided any information
about the relevance of such documents or demonstrated that he could pay the costs of
serving the subpoenas and making copies of the documents. [ECF No. 31]. Plaintiff also
fails to make this showing in the instant motion for subpoenas.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion for subpoenas is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 20, 2016
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2