Mack v. Cotter et al

Filing 119

ORDER: Plaintiff is hereby directed that he has 21 days from the date of this order to provide additional argument in opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 93 , if Plaintiff so desires. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 10/11/2012. (mcot, ) Modified on 10/11/2012 to edit text(mcot, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Edward D. Mack, #261986,

)
)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
)
Daniel Cotter, W.M. Tisdale, Michael )
McCall, Miriam Snyder, Barrette Durant, )
Robert Johnson, and Lavern Epps
)
)
Defendants. )

C/A No. 5:11-588-TLW-KDW

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1), and Local Rule
73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in
prisoner petitions filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 21, 2012, Defendants filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 93, and Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to
Defendants’ motion on June 25, 2012, ECF No. 102. On July 19, 2012, the court granted in
part Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order to Permit Correspondence filed on June 15, 2012, ECF
No. 100, and ordered Defendants to permit Plaintiff to send correspondence to six identified
inmates concerning this case. ECF No. 109. Plaintiff’s correspondence was being sought for
the limited purpose of requesting affidavits or declarations from other inmates in order to
provide support for Plaintiff’s response in opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment
motion. Plaintiff’s June 25, 2012 response to Defendants’ pending motion for summary
judgment, ECF No. 102, was filed prior to the court’s ruling allowing limited discovery and
affidavits or declarations from the inmates identified in this court’s July 19, 2012 Order.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby directed that he has 21 days from the date of this order to

provide additional argument in opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment,
ECF No. 93, if Plaintiff so desires.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 11, 2012
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge

2