Brockington v. South Carolina Department of Social Services et al

Filing 93

ORDER denying 59 Motion for Settlement of Claim; finding as moot 63 Motion to Compel; granting in part 75 Motion for Extension of Time. Plaintiff has ten days from the date of this order to file a response to Defenda nts' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 68 ). Failure to do so will result in a recommendation that Defendants' motion be granted and this case be dismissed.Response is due February 11, 2019. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 01/30/2019.(dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
CLARA LEWIS BROCKINGTON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
-vs)
)
)
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
)
OF SOCIAL SERVICES and REESE
)
PALMER,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )
I.

Civil Action No. 4:16-cv-3326-RBH-TER

ORDER

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this action arising from her employment with

Defendant. Presently before the court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Settlement of Claim (ECF No. 59),
Motion to Compel (ECF No. 63), and Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No. 75). 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)(g), DSC.
II.

MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT OF CLAIM
In Plaintiff’s motion docketed as “Motion for Settlement of Claim,” Plaintiff seeks the

following relief:
Prose Plaintiff's motion is to dispose of any evidence that the Defendants are
attempting for admission concerning previous falls, previous injuries, previous jobs,
etc., are not admissible in court and motion is granted by the court.
Prose Plaintiff's motion(s) are that the claim(s) submitted by the Plaintiff is
granted by the court and not dismissed by the court. Pro se Plaintiff is in agreement
to negotiate claims stated with the Defendants.
Prose Plaintiff's motion is that Reese Palmer remains a part of this case along

with DSS, since he is the party that hired Plaintiff and terminated Plaintiff and
motion is granted by court.
Prose Plaintiff's motion is that the court grant all evidence to be admissible
to support the injury and continued disability of the Plaintiff such as medicals,
salaries, injury, Defendants' refusal to pay worker's compensation, loss of benefits,
Job Description and Acceptance Letter does not state that a test and certification had
to be taken with a passing score was contingent upon being hired as a Foster Care
Case Manager, etc.
Motion for Settlement of Claim p. 2.
Plaintiff has filed no evidence to support these requests, which are more appropriately raised
in either a motion for summary judgment or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment.
Plaintiff also indicates her willingness to “negotiate claims,” which she may address with
Defendants. As such, Plaintiff’s motion is denied.
III.

MOTION TO COMPEL
In Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel she argues that she has not received any response from

Defendants to her discovery requests. Defendants respond by stating that they missed the deadline
to respond due to an internal calendaring error, but have since submitted responses to Plaintiff’s
requests. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is moot.1
IV.

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
Also pending before the court is Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 68).

Even though Plaintiff filed a Response (ECF No. 80) to the motion, she asserts only that the
discovery that was provided by Defendants was not responsive to her requests and the court should

1

In her reply, Plaintiff argues that Defendants should pay her a sum of $500 to cover the
expenses she incurred in having to “develop and compose all documents, postage stamps, typing
copying, distributing, etc. of all documents mailed to Defendants.” The parties may submit briefs
on this issue within ten days of the date of this order.
-2-

direct Defendants to submit all documents requested by Plaintiff and extend her time to respond to
the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has not previously raised this issue. Even if the court
were to construe Plaintiff’s response as a motion to compel, the motion would be untimely under the
scheduling order. Further, Plaintiff has failed to point to any specific document or group of
documents that she requested that she did not receive. Plaintiff has ten days from the date of this
order to file a response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 68).
V.

CONCLUSION
In sum, Plaintiff’s Motion for Settlement of Claim (ECF No. 59) is DENIED, Plaintiff’s

Motion to Compel (ECF No. 63) is MOOT, and Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time (ECF No.
75) is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff has ten days from the date of this order to file a response
to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 68). Failure to do so will result in
a recommendation that Defendants’ motion be granted and this case be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
January 30, 2019
Florence, South Carolina

-3-