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, )

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