Davis v. Richland County et al

Filing 57

ORDER granting 42 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying 52 Motion to Compel. As a result of the filing of an Amended Complaint, the Report and Recommendation (Document # 19 ) entered by the undersigned is hereby vacated and a new Report and Recommendation is entered herewith. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 10/24/2013.(dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
ANTONIO DAVIS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
-vs)
)
)
RICHLAND COUNTY, SHERIFF LEON )
LOTT, DEP. SARA GIRON, DEP.
)
ADRIAN THOMPSON, DEP. ADAM
)
CORNWELL, and RICHLAND COUNTY )
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT;
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

Civil Action No.: 4:12-cv-3429-RMG-TER

ORDER

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging
that he was subjected to racial profiling and excessive force during an arrest. Presently before the
court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend his Complaint (Document # 42) and Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel (Document # 52). All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned
pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), DSC.
Plaintiff seeks to amend his Complaint to add allegations that Defendants Leon Lott and
Richland County negligently hired, trained, supervised, or disciplined the officers and established
a custom and/or policy of allowing officers to use excessive force against civilians without facing
any discipline. Defendants consent to the Motion. Rule 15(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., provides that leave
to amend a pleading should be given freely when justice so requires. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion to
Amend (Document # 42) is GRANTED. The Clerk’s Office is directed to file Plaintiff’s Motion
as the Amended Complaint and attach to it the original Complaint.
As a result of the filing of an Amended Complaint, the Report and Recommendation
(Document # 19) entered by the undersigned is hereby vacated and a new Report and

Recommendation is entered herewith.
Plaintiff also seeks an order compelling Defendants to respond to certain discovery requests.
Plaintiff asserts the he served discovery requests on Defendants, who refused to provide the
requested information. However, Plaintiff did not attach to his Motion a copy of his discovery
requests or Defendants’ discovery responses as required by Local Rules 37.01(B) and 7.04, D.S.C.
Thus, his Motion to Compel (Document # 52) is DENIED.
IT IS ORDERED.
s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
October 24, 2013
Florence, South Carolina

-2-