Brown v. Jackson et al
ORDER denying 29 Motion for Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 02/09/2017.(dsto, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
V. JACKSON, SCDC Employee; and
WARDEN COHEN, SCDC Employee,
in their individual capacities,
Civil Action No.: 4:16-cv-2305-TLW-TER
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?