CABBAGESTALK v. HARDIN, 5:13-cv-02974-RMG-KDW. (2014)
Court: District Court, D. South Carolina
Number: infdco20140320744
Visitors: 10
Filed: Feb. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Feb. 18, 2014
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION KAYMANI D. WEST, Magistrate Judge. 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 Default Judgment filed on February 14, 2014. ECF No. 43. 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, and submit findings and recomme
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION KAYMANI D. WEST, Magistrate Judge. 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 Default Judgment filed on February 14, 2014. ECF No. 43. 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, and submit findings and recommen..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KAYMANI D. WEST, Magistrate Judge.
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 Default Judgment filed on February 14, 2014. ECF No. 43. 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, and submit findings and recommendations to the District Court.
Plaintiff's motion asks the court to enter judgment against Defendants contending that Defendants were given until February 7, 2014 to respond to Plaintiff's summary judgment motion, and that February 7, 2014 "has passed and the defendants have disobeyed the court's order." ECF No. 43. Plaintiff requests that summary judgment be granted in his favor. Id. The undersigned has reviewed the docket and finds that Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's summary judgment motion, which was due by February 7, 2014, was timely filed and timely served on Plaintiff on February 6, 2014. See ECF Nos. 36, 36-1. Accordingly, it is recommended that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 43, be denied.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
Source: Leagle
