McElrath v. Division of Investigation Dept. Agents et al

Filing 159

ORDER: Plaintiff's Motions, ECF Nos. 135 , 136 , and 139 are denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kaymani D West on 1/14/2015.(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 Issuance of a Subpoena, ECF No. 135,
Motion to Strike, ECF No. 136, and Motion for an Order Compelling Response, ECF No. 139.
All of Plaintiff’s Motions relate to Defendants’ purported failure to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 115. Defendants have responded to Plaintiff’s Motions.
ECF Nos. 141, 143, and 152.
Plaintiff’s Motions are denied as moot. The case Docket reflects that Defendants filed a
Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on October 31,
2014. ECF No. 124. Furthermore, Defendants maintain that they served Plaintiff with their
Response by mail on October 31, 2014, ECF No. 143, and Defendants’ certificate of service,
ECF No. 143-1, indicates that Defendants’ served Plaintiff with their Memorandum in
Opposition of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment on October 31, 2014. Additionally,
Defendants provided the court with an Affidavit from Beth Tidwell, the Administrative Assistant
to the Agency Mailroom Coordinator with the S.C. Department of Corrections, who avers that

Plaintiff received a legal correspondence from Defense Counsel on November 4, 2014, and
Plaintiff signed to acknowledge receipt of the mail on November 5, 2014. ECF No. 143-2.
However, Tidwell indicated that the prison mailroom staff sent the correspondence to the
Correspondence Review Committee at SCDC Headquarters for review because they observed
what they believed to be questionable content. Id. ¶ 4. The approved correspondence was sent
back to Ridgeland Correctional Institution for Plaintiff’s receipt on November 25, 2014. Id. ¶ 5.
Furthermore, in his Motion for Default Judgment, Plaintiff indicates that he has now received
Defendants’ Response. ECF No. 154. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motions, ECF Nos. 135, 136, and
139 are denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

January 14, 2015
Florence, South Carolina

Kaymani D. West
United States Magistrate Judge