Goss v. Stirling et al

Filing 213

ORDER denying 198 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 3/26/2020. (lbak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Darrell L. Goss,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Bryan P. Stirling, Charles
Williams, Joel Anderson, Aaron
Joyner, Michael Stephen, Scott
Lewis, Willie Davis, Richard
Cothran, Levern Cohen, Donnie E.
Stonebreaker, Terrie Wallace,
Gary Lane, John Pate, and
Patricia Yeldell,
Defendants.

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

C/A No.: 1:18-2124-BHH-SVH

ORDER

Darrell L. Goss (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violation of his
Eighth Amendment rights, against Richard Cothran (“Cothran”), Warden of
Turbeville Correctional Institution (“TCI”), in his individual capacity, for
failure to protect Plaintiff from inmate assaults and the threat of inmate
assaults due to increased gang violence. 1

Plaintiff has moved to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice all claims against
all other defendants except against Cothran (collectively “Defendants”). [See
ECF No. 163, ECF No. 174 at 1–2]. All Defendants have moved for summary
judgment, and on February 20, 2020, the undersigned issued report and
recommendation, recommending in part the district judge grant Plaintiff’s
motion for voluntary dismissal and deny Contran’s motion for summary
judgment as to Plaintiff’s remaining claim for violation of his Eighth
1

This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff’s motion for
reconsideration of the court’s order denying his motion to amend his
complaint. [ECF No. 198]. 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)(e) (D.S.C.).
On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend or correct his
complaint, and on the same day, the undersigned issued an order denying
Plaintiff’s motion as untimely, stating that the deadline for the amendment
of pleadings expired November 14, 2018, eleven months before Plaintiff’s
motion. [ECF Nos. 167, 168]. On February 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant
motion for reconsideration, seeking to add a state-law claim to this action for
gross negligence and citing Laber v Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 427 (4th Cir.
2006), for support, arguing “delay alone is an insufficient reason to deny his
motion to amend complaint.” [ECF No. 198].
Although “leave [to amend] shall be freely given when justice so
requires,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), “a motion to amend may be denied when it
has been unduly delayed and when allowing the motion would prejudice the
nonmovant.” Lone Star Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc. v. Alpha of Virginia, Inc.,
43 F.3d 922, 941 (4th Cir. 1995). In this instant case, allowing the Plaintiff to

Amendment rights for failure to protect him from prison gang violence. [ECF
No. 191 at 28].
2

amend his complaint to add a state-law claim in addition to his constitutional
claims would be highly prejudicial to Defendants, as discovery is complete
and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment has been heard.
As cited by Plaintiff, “[w]hether an amendment is prejudicial will often
be determined by the nature of the amendment and its timing.” Matrix

Capital Mgmt. Fund, LP v. BearingPoint, Inc., 576 F.3d 172, 193 (4th Cir.
2009) (citation omitted and emphasis added); see also Laber, 438 F.3d at 427
(“the further the case progressed before judgment was entered, the more
likely it is that the amendment will prejudice the defendant or that a court
will find bad faith on the plaintiff’s part”).
Here, the deadline to amend Plaintiff’s complaint expired on November
14, 2018, and amendment at this time would be prejudicial to Defendants.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. [ECF No. 198].
IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 26, 2020
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

3