Charlot v. Donley et al

Filing 81

ORDER denying 53 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend/Correct, denying as moot 54 Plaintiff's Motion Waive Proof of Service Requirements for Individual Defendants and granting 76 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 2/24/2012.(abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION
Vera Shepard Charlot,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
Honorable Michael B. Donley, Secretary )
)
of the Air Force; Terry St. Peter; Dawn
)
M. Moore; and Clayton D. Leishman,
)
)
Defendants.
)

C/A No.: 3:11-579-MBS-SVH

ORDER

Plaintiff, Vera Shepard Charlot, brought this action alleging discrimination,
retaliation, hostile work environment, and defamation related to her employment. This
matter comes before the court on the following motions: (1) Plaintiff’s motion to amend
the complaint [Entry #53]; (2) Plaintiff’s motion to waive proof of service requirements
for the individual defendants [Entry #54]; and (3) Defendants’ motion for an extension of
time to complete discovery [Entry #76]. All pretrial proceedings in this case were
referred to the undersigned on January 1, 2012 pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(g) (D.S.C.).
I.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend the Complaint
In her motion to amend the complaint, Plaintiff does not submit a proposed new

pleading with additional factual allegations, but instead seeks to attach 130 pages of
documents to the original complaint to “provide further evidentiary support.” [Entry
#53]. Plaintiff previously filed a similar motion to amend the complaint [Entry #30],

which was denied without prejudice by United States Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett,
as the documents appeared “to be more appropriately presented as exhibits in connection
with a dispositive motion or at trial.” [Entry #34].

The instant motion to amend the

complaint seeks to attach many of the same documents as did the prior motion. Plaintiff
may file the material as support for facts presented or disputed in a dispositive motion,
and/or may propose to use the documents at trial. However, it is not necessary or
appropriate to file the documents as attachments to the complaint, particularly without
specific reference within the complaint to how each document relates to the allegations.
Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint [Entry #53] is denied.
II.

Motion to Waive Proof of Service Requirements for Individual Defendants
In her motion to waive proof of the service requirements, Plaintiff argues that she

should be relieved of the obligation to provide proof of service for Terry St. Peter,
Clayton D. Leishman, and Dawn M. Moore (“Individual Defendants”), based on a
statement from Defendants’ counsel that the defendants have received copies of the
complaint. In lieu of an answer, Individual Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on
October 11, 2011, challenging subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
As such, it appears that Individual Defendants are not challenging service of the
summons and complaint or have waived the defense of improper service. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b). Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to waive proof of service for Individual
Defendants [Entry #54] is denied as moot.

2

III.

Motion to Extend Discovery
Defendants have moved to extend the deadline for discovery to accommodate

Plaintiff’s request to reschedule her deposition and in light of her indication that she plans
to retain counsel. [Entry #76]. Defendants’ motion is granted and an amended scheduling
order will be entered as a separate docket entry.
Plaintiff is specifically advised that failure to retain counsel does not relieve her
from any obligation to this court, including complying with the applicable scheduling
order. The court deems Plaintiff to be proceeding pro se unless and until she retains an
attorney. If Plaintiff obtains no attorney to represent her interests, the court will continue
to expect this litigation to be conducted in accordance with all provisions of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Civil Rules, and court orders. Further, the court is
unable to provide Plaintiff with legal advice.

Failure to comply with court rules,

including the discovery rules, could have serious consequences including, but not limited
to, striking a claim, defense, pleading, dismissing the action for lack of prosecution,
holding the party in default, and/or monetary sanctions.
IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, (1) Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint [Entry

#53] is denied; (2) Plaintiff’s motion to waive proof of service requirements for the
individual defendants [Entry #54] is denied as moot; and (3) Defendants’ motion for an
extension of time to complete discovery [Entry #76] is granted.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

February 24, 2012
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

4