Brown v. Powell et al

Filing 76

ORDER denying 64 Motion for Evidence ; denying 66 Motion to Amend Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 06/11/2013.(dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Daniel M. Brown,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
vs.
)
L.T. Perry Powell; L.T. Ronald Brayboy;
)
Sgt. Terrance Purvis; Captain Kenny Green;
)
and Officer H. Kessler,
)
)
)
Defendants.
________________________________________ )

C/A No. 4:12-3057-DCN-TER

ORDER

Presently before the court are two motions from Plaintiff entitled “Motion for Evidence”
(doc.#64) and “Motion to Amend Discovery” (doc.# 66). Defendants filed a response. (Doc. # 68).
It appears Plaintiff is attempting to offer evidence for purposes of trial. Accordingly, these motions
are DENIED as premature.
In the event Plaintiff is offering this evidence as discovery responses, it is noted that
Plaintiff has provided this information to the Defendants, and 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.1 Thus, these motions are DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
June 11, 2013
Florence, South Carolina

1

If Plaintiff wants to file a pretrial motion under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Plaintiff should do so within the deadlines set forth in the court’s scheduling order.