McElrath v. Division of Investigation Dept. Agents et al

Filing 108

ORDER denying 92 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 9/22/2014.(mcot, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Andrew Marshall McElrath, #336981,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Chris Golden; Clay Conyers; Anthony
Cotton; Thomas Burgess; Christopher
Voll; Sheriff John Skipper; Lt. Chris
Vaughn, HA Barnett, all in their individual
and official capacities, and Anderson
County Sheriff’s Office,
Defendants.

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

C/A No.

8:14-cv-00785-BHH-KDW

ORDER

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 for Summary Judgment and/or Judgment by
Default filed on August 28, 2014. ECF No. 92. Plaintiff bases his Motion on Defendants’
purported overdue discovery. Id. Specifically, Plaintiff maintains, verbatim:
Originally plaintiffs discovery was due as of Aug/1st/2014 and defendants filed a
motion for an extension to produce plaintiffs discovery which the court granted
and order defendants to produce discovery by Aug/15/2014 and the defendants
have failed to comply with the courts order and meet this deadline, which leaves
plaintiff asking for judgment by default as he is entitled to do so.
Id. Plaintiff maintains he is entitled to ask for judgment because Defendants have allegedly failed
to timely respond to his discovery requests. Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does
not entitle Plaintiff to a judgment in these circumstances. Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure provides: “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that
there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Here, Plaintiff’s Motion only alleges that Defendants failed to timely respond to
his discovery—it does not allege or demonstrate that there is no genuine dispute as to any

material fact. ECF No. 92. Accordingly, a Motion for Summary Judgment is inappropriate in this
circumstance. Therefore, the court will construe Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. 92, as a Motion to
for Sanctions pursuant to Rule 37(b)(2)(A)(vi).
In consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion, the court reviewed Defendants’ Response to
Plaintiff’s Motion. ECF No. 93. There, Defendants maintain that they timely responded to
Plaintiff’s discovery on August 15, 2014, by mailing responses to the Tyger River Correctional
Institution. Id. at 1. Later, Defendants sent Plaintiff discovery responses to Ridgeland
Correctional Institution after they discovered Plaintiff was transferred there. See ECF No. 93-2.
In his Reply, Plaintiff argues that envelopes indicate that Defendants did not send their responses
until after the discovery deadline ended, and therefore, he is entitled to judgment. ECF No. 99.
However, the envelope provided by Plaintiff indicated the mail was received at Tyger River on
August 18, 2014. ECF No. 99-1 at 2. Under Rule 6(d), three days are added to the computation
of time for service by mail. The court notes that Plaintiff concedes that he has received
Defendants’ discovery responses, though Plaintiff continues to maintain the responses were not
timely.

See id. The court finds that Defendants timely responsed to Plaintiff’s discovery.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion, ECF No. 92, is denied.

September 22, 2014
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge