Dawson v. Bush et al

Filing 75

ORDER denying 72 Motion to Amend/Correct; granting 73 Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff is given fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order to file a Motion to Compel, pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure to address any deficiencies he contends are present in Defendants' responses to his discovery requests dated March 3, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 05/06/2014.(dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
) C/A No. 4:13-2236-DCN-TER
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
ORDER
Ass. Warden Denis Bush; Warden Larry Cartledge; Ass. )
)
Warden Florence Mauney,
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________________ )
William Douglas Dawson, Jr., #248371,

This court entered an Order on April 28, 2014, finding Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (doc.
# 52) moot. Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel on March 5, 2014, asserting Defendants had not
responded to his discovery requests. Defendants responded that they had mailed their responses to
Plaintiff’s discovery requests on March 3, 2014. Therefore, this court found the Motion to Compel
moot as it appeared the documents had crossed in the mail.
Plaintiff filed a document on May 5, 2014, entitled “Objection to Magistrate Judge Order.”
(Doc. #73). From this document, it appears that Plaintiff believes Defendants’ responses to his
discovery are deficient. However, this court is unable to ascertain from the filings how Plaintiff
contends the responses are deficient. This “Objection” is being treated as a Motion to Reconsider
the court’s Order of April 28, 2014. The Motion is granted and Plaintiff is given fifteen (15) days
from the date of this Order to file a Motion to Compel pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure to address any deficiencies he contends are present in Defendants’ responses to his
discovery requests dated March 3, 2014.
On May 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Motion to File An[sic] Supplemental
Complaint” along with a proposed supplemental complaint. This Motion to Amend his second

amended complaint (doc. #72) is denied as it is filed outside of the court’s scheduling order (doc.
#37).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
May 6, 2014
Florence, South Carolina

2