Robertson v. Geo Columbia Regional Care Center

Filing 79

ORDER denying 59 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 64 Motion to Proceed Without Motioning Defendant for Evidence; granting 76 Motion for Extension of Time. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 12/19/2012.(dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION

James Buford Robertson,
Plaintiff,

vs.
Geo Columbia Regional Care Center,
Defendant.

________________________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 4:12-712-MGL-TER

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint. (Doc. #59).
Defendant filed a response in opposition asserting that the motion is untimely based on the court’s
scheduling order. Defendant further argues that it would be prejudiced if Plaintiff is allowed to
amend the complaint as Plaintiff is attempting to add a new claim/cause of action raising a new
theory not pled in the complaint requiring additional investigation by Defendant. Plaintiff filed a
reply to the response asserting that he is not an attorney and knows “nothing regarding the
procedures of the law and courts”and that his claim has merit. (Doc. #63).
In the motion to amend the complaint, Plaintiff seeks to add a new claim/cause of action
alleging Defendant was negligent in failing to protect him from another patient/inmate on July 12,
2012. However, Plaintiff did not file the motion to amend until October 11, 2012. Plaintiff’s motion
to amend his complaint was filed outside of the court’s scheduling order of September 10, 2012. When

seeking to amend a pleading after an applicable deadline in a scheduling order, a party must satisfy
the good cause standard of Rule 16(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., before addressing the merits of a motion to
amend under Rule 15(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. Nourison Rug Corp. v. Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295, 298 (4th Cir.
2008); Dilmar Oil Co., Inc. v. Federated Mt. Ins. Co., 986 F.Supp. 959, 980 (D.S.C. 1997). Plaintiff

fails to show good cause. Furthermore, even assuming compliance with Rule 16(b), Plaintiff’s
motion should be denied under Rule 15. Additionally, Plaintiff previously filed a motion to amend
his complaint on June 29, 2012. The court entered an order on July 25, 2012, advising Plaintiff that
he had a right to amend his pleading under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as a
responsive pleading had not been filed at that time. Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to amend his complaint (#59) is DENIED.
Plaintiff also filed a document on November 13, 2012, asserting that he would like to
proceed with his civil action “without requesting the Defendants mentioned above at this time show
evidence.” (Doc. #64). Petitioner states that he “comes to this court and that he be allowed to
proceed “without motioning the Defendants for their evidence.” Id. Defendant filed a response
stating it did not understand the relief Plaintiff was seeking in this document but opposed the motion
to the extent it is attempting to establish liability of Defendant. (Doc. #72). Plaintiff filed a reply
asserting that “the Relief that Plaintiff is seeking is (injunctive relief under 42 USC §1983) and the
Defendants liability is that they violated Plaintiff’s rights as a mental patient.” (Doc. # 75).
It appears that Plaintiff seeks some restriction on the Defendant’s ability to present evidence
and to consider evidence he produces and grant injunctive relief. This motion (doc.#64) is not proper
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and is DENIED.
On December 10, 2012, Defendant filed a motion for an enlargement of time to file
dispositive motions. (Doc. # 76). The current deadline pursuant to the court’s scheduling order is
December 19, 2012. Defendant requests an extension of time to file dispositive motions until
January 18, 2013. Defendant asserts that the administrator for the Columbia Regional Care Center
(CRCC), the facility where the Plaintiff is housed, recently relocated to Florida. As a result,
Defendant contends that with the administrator’s move and the transition period at CRCC, the

upcoming holiday season, and Defendant’s counsel’s trial schedule, Defendant needs additional time
to consult with the former administrator and prepare the necessary paperwork in support of any
dispositive motions. Defendant requests an extension of time to file dispositive motions until
January 18, 2013. This motion is GRANTED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
December 19, 2012
Florence, South Carolina