Mack v. Cotter et al

Filing 129

ORDER: Defendants are ordered to update the court by December 10, 2012 with the status of their compliance with this court's July 19, 2012 order 109 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 12/5/2012. (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.
On November 16, 2012, the court granted Plaintiff an extension, until November 30,
2012, to provide additional arguments or affidavits in opposition to Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment.

ECF No. 125. On December 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a supplemental

opposition to Defendants’ summary judgment motion, ECF No. 128, in which Plaintiff avers

that he attempted to correspond, on October 17, 2012, with four of the six inmates named in
the court’s July 19, 2012 order, and that he has not received a response or acknowledgement
that these correspondences were received. ECF No. 128 at 1-2.

Plaintiff further contends

that he spoke with Ms. Merchant from Perry Correctional Institution’s mailroom about the
status of these correspondences, and he was told that he “was charged for four (4) postages,
but she did not know whether the correspondences were delivered nor if a SCDC personnel
reviewed it.” Id. at 2. Per this court’s July 19, 2012 order, Plaintiff was given the opportunity
to correspond with the named inmates in order to prosecute his case.

Defendants are

therefore ordered to update the court by December 10, 2012 with the status of their
compliance with this court’s July 19, 2012 order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 5, 2012
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge

2