Davis v. Richland County et al

Filing 67

ORDER denying 66 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 02/13/2013.(dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Antonio Davis,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
vs.
Richland County; Director Renaldo Myers;
Ass. Director Kathryn Harrell; Lt. Smith; Lt.
Williams; Sgt. Showl; Sgt. Waters; Sgt.
Freely; Officer Dale Martin,
Defendants.
_____________________________________

C/A No. 4:12-2057-RMG-TER

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon Plaintiff’s motion entitled “Motion for Discovery” (Doc.
#66). It appears Plaintiff is asking the court to order Defendants to respond to discovery requests.1
Generally, this court does not enter the discovery process, which is governed by the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. See Rules 26 through 38, generally. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Plaintiff's
“Motion for Discovery” is DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge

February 12, 2013
Florence, South Carolina

1

The Summons were issued on December 12, 2012, (doc.46) and there are no returns executed
as of this date showing that Defendants have been served.
1