ORDER

THOMAS E. ROGERS III, Magistrate Judge.

Presently before the court are Plaintiff's Motions to Compel. (Docs. #31 and #40). Defendants filed responses in opposition to Plaintiff's Motions and Plaintiff filed replies. All pretrial proceedings in this case were referred to the undersigned pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), DSC.

Plaintiff filed motions to compel on November 14, 2014, (doc. #31) and December 10, 2014 (doc. #40). Plaintiff served Defendants with discovery on October 19, 2014, and filed the first motion to compel on November 14, 2014, which was prior to the thirty-day response time as allowed under the rules. Therefore, the motion to compel filed November 14, 2014, (doc. #31) is denied as premature.

On December 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed his second motion to compel (Doc. #40) which was basically duplicative of his first motion to compel. Defendants responded that they sent notice to Plaintiff on November 19, 2014, requesting a thirty (30) day extension to respond to the discovery and had since served Plaintiff with their responses. Plaintiff filed a reply arguing that the Defendants did not fully/properly comply with his request for production of documents. Defendants responded to Plaintiff's reply asserting that they had appropriately responded to Plaintiff's discovery requests and that much of what he is seeking through discovery is unrelated and irrelevant to the allegations contained in his complaint. (Doc. #55).

This motion to compel is granted and Defendants have fifteen (15) days to respond to Plaintiff's requests.

IT IS SO ORDERED.