Glass v. Hill et al

Filing 61

ORDER granting 60 Motion to Compel. Defendants are directed to provide responses to the discovery requests by May 7, 2021. Defendants are advised that failure to comply with the court's order may result in sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 4/23/2021. (lbak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Walter Glass,
Plaintiff,
v.
Jasmine Hill; Cunningham; Tyatta
Davis; and Wali Khan,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 1:20-1972-SAL-SVH

ORDER

Walter Glass (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
a complaint alleging defendants violated his constitutional rights. [ECF No. 1].
This matter comes before the court on the motion of Plaintiff to compel
Defendants to respond to discovery. [ECF No. 60]. On February 1, 2021, the
court ordered Defendants to produce documents requested by Plaintiff, which
request was construed as Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of
Documents. [ECF No. 54 at 2]. The order directed Defendants to respond to the
discovery requests no later than March 2, 2021. Id. On April 8, 2021, Plaintiff
filed the instant motion alleging Defendants had failed to respond. 1 [ECF No.
60]. Defendants failed to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion to compel.

In his motion to compel, Plaintiff seeks his medical records, which were not
included in the court’s February 1, 2021 order. The court finds that Defendants
will not be prejudiced by also producing to Plaintiff his own medical records.

1

In light of the foregoing, the court grants Plaintiff’s motion to compel.
Defendants are directed to provide responses to the discovery requests by May
7, 2021. Because Defendants failed to timely respond to the discovery, any and
all objections are deemed waived under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). Defendants are
advised that failure to comply with the court’s order may result in sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 23, 2021
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2