Robinson v. Amonitti et al

Filing 46

ORDER denying 34 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 8/22/2013.(mcot, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Corey Jawan Robinson,

Plaintiff,
v.

MD George Amonitti, Practitioner Ms. E
Holcomb, Doctor B Awood, and CCC L
Fripp,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C/A No. 5:13-cv-00504-JMC-KDW

ORDER

Defendants.

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel filed on July 29, 2013. ECF No.
34. Defendants filed a response opposing Plaintiff’s motion on July 31, 2013, and Plaintiff
replied to Defendants’ response on August 7, 2103. ECF Nos. 36, 37. Pursuant to the provisions
of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., this magistrate judge is
authorized to review all pretrial matters in cases filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff’s motion asks the court to compel Defendants to answer his discovery requests.
ECF No. 34 at 1. Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion arguing that they mailed their responses
to Plaintiff’s discovery requests on July 19, 2013, and Plaintiff “provides no argument regarding
the Responses to which the Defendants can formulate a response at this time.” ECF No. 36 at 1.
Plaintiff responds to Defendants’ assertion that they timely responded to Plaintiff’s discovery
requests and argues that:
[Defendants’ response] did not make no objection of why they could not produce
the document requested . . . within the 30 day[] time period. Plaintiff have

provided argument regarding the Responses to which the Defendants can
formulate a response, Plaintiff asked the court to grant his motion to compel,
because the discovery sought is relevant to the claims and defenses in this case.
ECF No. 37 at 1.
Local Rule 37.01, D.S.C., requires that a party moving to compel discovery responses
provide the court with a copy of the discovery requests and responses at issue. Although Plaintiff
included the text of the discovery requests in his motion to compel, Plaintiff has not provided the
court with a copy of Defendants’ responses, and therefore the court cannot determine whether
Defendants’ discovery responses were adequate. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel,
ECF No. 34, is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 22, 2013
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge