Johnson v. Edwards

Filing 49

ORDER denying 41 MOTION for Final Judgment; denying 43 MOTION for Summary Judgment; denying 45 MOTION for names of all Deputy Clerks; denying 47 MOTION for Entry of Default; and denying 48 MOTION for Final Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V Hodges on 8/29/2017. (mwal)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Miyuki Maureen Johnson, Plaintiff, vs. Col. Eric Edwards; Col. Clem Donald McDuffie; GS-13 Carla M. Laird; and GS-15 Andrea V. Gardener, in their individual and personal capacities, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) C/A No.: 3:17-1122-JFA-SVH ORDER This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s motions for final, default, and summary judgment [ECF Nos. 41, 43, 47, 48], and motion for names of the Clerk of Court’s Deputy Clerks [ECF No. 45]. Under Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), all pretrial proceedings in this action have been referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge. For the reasons that follow, the court denies Plaintiff’s motions. I. Motions for Judgment Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought this action against Col. Eric Edwards, Col. Clem Donald McDuffie, GS-13 Carla M. Laird, and GS-15 Andrea V. Gardener (“Defendants”). [ECF No. 1]. Because Defendants are federal employees, they are entitled to 60 days to answer or otherwise plead under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(3) after proper service. The docket reflects that the United States Attorney’s Office was served on July 13, 2017. [ECF No. 37 (acknowledging service of the summons and complaints); and ECF No. 35 (reflecting summons returned executed)]. The undersigned denies Plaintiff’s motions for final and summary judgment [ECF Nos. 41, 43, 48]. Specifically, Plaintiff’s motions are based on a false assumption that defendants are in default. Defendants are not in default and have until September 14, 2017, to file an answer or other responsive pleading. II. Freedom of Information Act Request Further, the court denies Plaintiff’s motion pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(a), for the full names of the Clerk of Court’s Deputy Clerks and Chief Deputy. The Freedom of Information Act, codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 and 552, does not apply to the Judicial Branch. See 5 U.S.C. § 551(1)(B) (excluding the courts of the United States from the definition of “agency” used in § 551 et seq. of Title 5); see also Nero v. Maryland, 487 F. App'x 89, 90 (4th Cir. 2012) (holding Freedom of Information Act applies only to federal agencies and does not apply to the courts); In re Walker, No. CR.3:05-759-JFA-22, 2010 WL 2044651, at *2 (D.S.C. May 21, 2010)(“A federal court is not subject to the federal Freedom of Information Act.”)(emphasis in original). III. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motions [ECF Nos. 41, 43, 45, 47, 48] are denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. August 29, 2017 Columbia, South Carolina Shiva V. Hodges United States Magistrate Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?