Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lott v. Scaturo

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

July 15, 2014

Mark Lott a/k/a Mark Tillman Lott, Plaintiff,
v.
Holly Scaturo, SVPTP Director, Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

WALLACE W. DIXON, Magistrate Judge.

The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought this action seeking relief pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983. On February 11, 2014, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 34.) As the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, a Roseboro Order was entered by the Court on February 14, 2014, advising Plaintiff of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response. (Dkt. No. 35.) Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to file a properly supported response, the Defendant's motion may be granted, thereby ending his case. (Dkt. No. 35.) Plaintiff's response was due on March 20, 2014. (See Dkt. No. 35.)

On or about February 19, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking "that all medical, behavior management commitment, all request written by or about [Plaintiff], and all relevant records be released to [Plaintiff]." (Dkt. No. 37 at 1.) Judge Hendricks denied Plaintiff's motion on February 24, 2014. (Dkt. No. 40.) On or about March 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel. (Dkt. No. 42.) On March 7, 2014, Judge Hendricks issued the following text order denying that motion:

TEXT ORDER denying 42 Motion to Compel. On or about March 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Compel. (Dkt. No. 42.) Plaintiff "ask[s that] the motion to compel be granted so [he] can properly prepare" a response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dtk. No. 42 at 1 of 2.) However, Plaintiff did not attach any discovery requests to the instant motion; his motion therefore does not comply with Local Civil Rule 37.01(B). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED. AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

(Dkt. No. 43.)

On or about March 18, 2014, Plaintiff sought an extension of time within which to respond to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 45.) Judge Hendricks granted Plaintiff's motion, giving him until May 5, 2014, within which to file his response to the Defendant's motion. (See Dkt. No. 46.)

On or about April 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel. (See Dkt. No. 48.) Judge Hendricks denied that motion on April 23, 2014. (Dkt. No. 49.) On or about April 24, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion captioned "Motion for Dismissal of Defendants Summary Judgment and Default on Defendants." (Dkt. No. 51.) In an order dated and filed May 13, 2014, Judge Hendricks stated,

Plaintiff's motion seeking default and dismissal of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment is improper. Rule 55 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the entry of default when a defendant "fail[s] to plead or otherwise defend." FED. R. CIV. P. 55(a). Defendant has answered and filed a Motion for Summary Judgment; Plaintiff is therefore not entitled to default.
Despite an extension of time, Plaintiff has not responded to the Motion for Summary Judgment, and it appears to the court that he wishes to abandon this action. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the Plaintiff shall have through June 2, 2014, in which to file his response to the Motion for Summary Judgment. The Plaintiff is advised that if he fails to respond, this action will be subject to dismissal for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b), and for failure to comply with this Court's orders, pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the factors outlined in Chandler Leasing Corp. v. Lopez, 669 F.2d 919, 920 (4th Cir.1982). See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d 93 (4th Cir. 1989). The dismissal will be considered an adjudication on the merits, i.e., with prejudice.

(Dkt. No. 52 at 1-2 of 2.)

On or about May 30, 2014, Plaintiff filed another Motion for Extension of Time. (See Dkt. No. 54.) On June 3, 2014, Judge Hendricks issued the following text order:

TEXT ORDER GRANTING motion for extension of time to file response/reply 54. The plaintiff also appears to have misidentified a request for discovery from the defendants as a motion for "directed verdict." Instead, it is clear from his motion that the plaintiff is seeking documentation and computer records. The plaintiff must seek such discovery from the defendants directly pursuant to the applicable rules of civil procedure. However, the time for such discovery has expired and a motion for summary judgment is pending. The plaintiff has ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.