Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

THOMAS v. DORRIETY, 1:11-1585-MBS-SVH. (2012)

Court: District Court, D. South Carolina Number: infdco20120118d34 Visitors: 3
Filed: Jan. 17, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 17, 2012
Summary: ORDER SHIVA V. HODGES, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is a pretrial detainee incarcerated at Greenville County Detention Center ("GCDC") and brings this action against GCDC employees alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), all pretrial proceedings have been referred to the undersigned. This matter comes before the court on the motions of Plaintiff for an e
More

ORDER

SHIVA V. HODGES, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is a pretrial detainee incarcerated at Greenville County Detention Center ("GCDC") and brings this action against GCDC employees alleging violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), all pretrial proceedings have been referred to the undersigned.

This matter comes before the court on the motions of Plaintiff for an extension of time. [Entry #35, #36]. Plaintiff requests additional time to conduct discovery, including obtaining a copy of his medical records. Plaintiff's motions are granted. Defendant is directed to provide Plaintiff with a copy of his GCDC medical records by January 31, 2012. Additionally, the deadline for the completion of discovery is extended until February 9, 2012 and the deadline for filing dispositive motions is extended until February 28, 2012. Plaintiff is advised that all discovery requests to Defendants should be served on counsel for Defendants and not filed with the court.

Plaintiff also requests that the undersigned direct the United States Marshals Service to search for Defendant Ward to insure proper service. However, a review of the docket and Defendant's answer [Entry #21] reveals that counsel has made an appearance for Defendant Ward and has not asserted an affirmative defense based on improper service. Therefore, further service on Ward appears to be unnecessary.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer