Martin v. Duffy
ORDER denying 42 Motion for Investigation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 02/14/2018.(dsto, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANTHONY FRED MARTIN,
Civil Action No.: 4:15-cv-4947-DCN-TER
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging
violations of his constitutional rights by Defendant. Presently before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion
for Investigation (ECF No. 42). 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 asserts that he was attacked by a “dozen or so” gang members on October 11, 2016,
while housed in at the Broad River Correctional Facility. He asserts that another inmate told him
that Defendant Duffy “had set up a website that offered a (2) two million dollar bounty for
[Plaintiff’s] demise and that his gang was hired to do the hit.” Plaintiff asserts that an investigation
is warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(a)(2) and asks the court to move him to a safer environment.
As an initial matter, since Plaintiff filed his motion, he was transferred to another facility.
See Notice of Change of Address (ECF No. 43). Therefore, his request for a transfer is moot.
Section 1512(a)(2) of Title 18 makes it a criminal offense to use physical force or the threat
of physical force to intimidate a witness in an official proceeding. Plaintiff’s request for an
investigation is not properly before the court within this civil action. See, e.g., Hamrick v. Gottlieb,
416 F.Supp.2d 1, 4-5 (D.D.C. 2005) (no private right of action under 18 U.S.C. § 1512).
For these reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
February 14, 2018
Florence, South Carolina
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?