Robinson v. South Carolina Department of Corrections et al

Filing 147

ORDER denying 115 , 122 , 123 , 126 , 129 , 132 , 141 Motions to Compel; denying 130 , 140 Motions to Quash. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 1/31/2012.(mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Corey Jawan Robinson, #294233
Plaintiff,
vs.
South Carolina Department of Corrections; John Ozmint;
James Blackwell; Sgt. W. Young; Tiffany Starks; Sarah M.
Roberts; Ann Hallman; HCA Gregory Sarver; Lieber
Correctional Institution; David Tatarsky; Anna Moaks;
Candace A. Wigfall; Ramnarine Jaglal; Lt. Dessirence
Lloyd; Sgt. Y. Blowe; DHO A. Brown; Warden Wayne
McCave; Cpl Grealin Fraizer; Sgt J. Smith; Doctor R.
Babb,
Defendants.
________________________________________________

) C/A No. 5:10-2593-HMH-KDW
)
)
)
)
Order
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Affidavits (ECF No. 130
(Nov. 29, 2011)); Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 140 (Jan. 4, 2012)); and Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Production of Documents: ECF Nos.
115 (Sept. 21, 2011); 122 (Oct. 12, 2011); 123 (Oct. 19, 2011); 126 (Oct. 28, 2011); 129 (Nov.
22, 2011); 132 (Dec. 14, 2011); 141 (Jan. 4, 2012)).
Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Affidavits (ECF No. 130) relates to whether the affidavits of
Defendants Sgt. W. Young and Officer Tiffany Starks that were submitted in support of
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 111-10 and 111-11) are
true and correct. The court finds such arguments insufficient to require the affidavits of
Defendants Young and Starks be quashed. Further, a report and recommendation has been
submitted to the district court recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or for
Summary Judgment be granted. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Affidavits (ECF No.
130) is denied.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 140)
is also denied. In that motion, Plaintiff seeks to “quash” Defendants’ motion because it contains
statements that Plaintiff argues are untrue. Because motions to quash are not appropriately used
in this context, and because the undersigned has considered and made a recommendation
regarding Defendants’ motion for summary judgment at issue, Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash (ECF
No. 140) is denied.
Finally, Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel Production of Documents—ECF Nos. 115, 122,
123, 126, 129, 132, and 141—are denied. In an order denying four of Plaintiff’s prior motions to
compel, United States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III found that Defendants had
adequately responded to Plaintiff’s requests for production. Order (Oct. 4, 2011), ECF No. 118 at
2-3. Further, the discovery period for this case ended on July 29, 2011 (see Am. Scheduling
Order, ECF No. 88), and dispositive motions have been filed and are being considered by the
district court. Plaintiff’s motions to compel are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 31, 2012
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge

The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached
“Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”

2