McClam v. Livingston et al

Filing 53

TEXT ORDER denying 44 MOTION to Amend/Correct; denying 45 MOTION for an immediate Jury Trial; denying 48 MOTION to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 8/20/2015. (mwal)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Leo McClam,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Dr. NFN Cross,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No.: 3:15-362-TLW-SVH

ORDER

Leo McClam (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff’s
motion to amend the complaint [ECF No. 44], motion for jury trial [ECF No. 45], and
motion to compel [ECF No. 48]. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), all pretrial proceedings have been referred
to the undersigned.
I.

Motion to Amend
Plaintiff seeks to amend his complaint to add defendants previously dismissed. By

order dated April 6, 2015, the Honorable Terry L. Wooten, Chief United States District
Judge, dismissed Officer Livingston, social worker Judy Dupree, Nurse Janice Thomas,
Horry County Attorney Kia Wilson, and Sheriff Kenny Boone, from the lawsuit without
prejudice and without issuance and service of process [ECF No. 34]. Dr. Cross
(“Defendant”) is the only remaining defendant. Plaintiff has provided no indication that
the reasons for dismissal of Livingston, Dupree, Thomas, Wilson, and Boone are no
longer valid, and his motion to amend is therefore denied.

II.

Motion for a Jury Trial
Plaintiff requests a jury trial for this case. [ECF No. 45] If Plaintiff’s claims

survive summary judgment, Plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial. However, to the extent
Plaintiff seeks an immediate jury trial, his motion is denied as premature.
III.

Motion to Compel
In his motion to compel, Plaintiff states that Defendant had not responded to his

interrogatories within 30 days. [ECF No. 48]. Defendant’s response attaches his answers
to Plaintiff’s interrogatories and a certificate of service indicating the answers have now
been served. [ECF No. 49-1]. Plaintiff failed to file a reply. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion
to compel is denied as moot.
IV.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned denies Plaintiff’s motion to amend the

complaint [ECF No. 44], motion for an immediate jury trial [ECF No. 45], and motion to
compel [ECF No. 48].
IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 20, 2015
Columbia, South Carolina

Shiva V. Hodges
United States Magistrate Judge

2