Brown v. Jackson et al

Filing 46

ORDER denying 29 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 02/09/2017.(dsto, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA FLORENCE DIVISION L.C. BROWN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) -vs) ) ) V. JACKSON, SCDC Employee; and ) WARDEN COHEN, SCDC Employee, ) in their individual capacities, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________ ) Civil Action No.: 4:16-cv-2305-TLW-TER ORDER Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Defendants violated his constitutional rights. Presently before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery (Document # 29). 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. In his motion for discovery, Plaintiff seeks discovery from Defendants. However, it does not appear that Plaintiff served the discovery requests on Defendants prior to filing the motion. Discovery requests are to be served on parties, not filed with the court, and the court does not get involved in discovery matters until a party has requested discovery pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and, thereafter, a dispute arises. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. s/Thomas E. Rogers, III Thomas E. Rogers, III United States Magistrate Judge February 9, 2017 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?