Rivers v. Burnette et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying 25 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 11/05/2013.(dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
MAURIO RIVERS,
Plaintiff,

vs.
JOE BURNETTE; TIM KNIGHT,
Defendants.

________________________________________________

) C/A No. 4:13-1914-RMG-TER
)
)
)
)
ORDER
)
)
)
)
)

Presently before the court is “Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel.” (Doc. #25). In this document,
Plaintiff requests this court to issue an order to compel the Defendants to provide him with certain
information. Defendants filed a response in opposition asserting Plaintiff has never served
Defendants with the discovery which he now complains they have failed to answer. Defendants
further point out that in his Motion to Compel, Plaintiff indicates that he requested the discovery
from certain persons/entity which are not parties to this lawsuit.
Generally, this court does not enter the discovery process, which is governed by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff may seek discovery from the Defendants and/or non-parties in
accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Rules 26 through 37, 45 generally and
in compliance with the court’s scheduling order. It does not appear that he served the discovery on
the parties to this action. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
November 5, 2013
Florence, South Carolina