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.

Robinson v. Ragland

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division

June 14, 2016

GARY LAVON ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
v.
THOMAS RAGLAND; NIKON MORGAN; CHRISTOPHER DILLARD; FAITH CHAPPELL; AND JASON PALMER, Defendants.

          ORDER

          Thomas E. Rogers, III United States Magistrate Judge.

         Presently before the court are Plaintiff’s motions to compel discovery. (Docs. #30, #31 and #38). Defendants filed responses to the motions. (Docs. #35, #36, and #46). Plaintiff filed a reply to two of the responses. (Doc. #45).

         First Motion to Compel

         Plaintiff filed his first Motion to Compel Discovery on December 21, 2015. (Doc.#30). In this Motion, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling the production of certain documents. Specifically, Plaintiff requests an order compelling Defendants to produce the following documents: (a) (SMU) Special Management Unit B-Dorm log book and Plaintiff cell charts B-dorm cell B-Y-3 from October 3, 2013 to October 7, 2013; (b) copies of policy OP-22-01, OP-22-14, OP-22.12, and OP-21-09; and (c) Plaintiff’s complete medical record in SCDC. (Doc. #30). Plaintiff failed to attach a copy of the relevant portions of the discovery material with the motion in violation of Local Civil Rule 7, D.S.C.

         Defendants filed a response asserting that they have timely responded to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents and interrogatories. Further, Defendants assert Plaintiff failed to state in his motion any support for why Defendants’ objections or responses to his discovery requests were improper or incorrect.

         Log books

         In this request, Plaintiff seeks copies of log books and cell charts from October 3 to October 7, 2013. Plaintiff may discover nonprivileged matter that is relevant to his claim . . . . Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R.Civ.P. This alleged incident occurred on October 3, 2013. While the court can speculate as to what this information may show, Plaintiff fails to set forth his reasoning as to why this information is relevant to his claims.

         Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion with regard to the log books is DENIED. See Id.; Local Civil Rule 7, D.S.C.

         Policies

         Plaintiff requests that Defendants be ordered to produce copies of SCDC policies OP-22.01, OP-22.14, OP-22.12, and OP-21.09. Defendants responded to the motion asserting that while they did not provide copies of policies OP-22.14, OP-22.12, and OP-21.09, they did assist Plaintiff by “Providing the name of the corresponding policy and by informing Plaintiff that these policies were available in the law library.” (Doc. #35).

         Plaintiff’s motion to compel with regard to SCDC Policies OP-22.14, OP-22.12, and OP-21.09 is granted to the exent Defendants are ordered to make the non-restricted policies available to Plaintiff within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.

         As to Policy OP-22.01, Defendants object arguing that it is a “restricted” SCDC policy titled “Use of Force.” Defendants submitted the affidavit of Colie L. Rushton, Director of Security for SCDC and oversees the security for all of the correctional institutions in the State. (Rushton affidavit, Doc. #35-1).[1] Rushton asserts, among other things, that the SCDC “Use of Force” policy is classified as restricted as it addresses every aspect of the types of force utilized within SCDC including the use of chemical munitions about which the Plaintiff complains in this case. Id. He asserts that if the “Use of Force” policy was provided to an inmate, the safety and welfare of every SCDC employee would be in jeopardy as it provides the minutest specifics as to the force continuum to include identifying the responsive levels of control resulting from various levels of resistence from inmates. Id. Additionally, Rushton attests that the “Use of Force” policy includes information on the carrying of firearms and if inmates knew when officers would be armed, it would threaten the life and security of every institution, the public and the safety of other inmates. Id. Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s prior conviction for armed robbery and his disciplinaries for threatening to inflict harm on an SCDC employee and fighting another inmate further justifies their objection. (Doc. #35). Also, Plaintiff brings his claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. He fails to state why this policy is relevant to his constitutional claim. Therefore, this portion of his motion is DENIED. See Rule 26(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P.

         Medical Record

         Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production of Documents requested Plaintiff’s medical records from the beginning of his incarceration within the SCDC. In response to the motion to compel, Defendants assert that they obtained Plaintiff’s medical records and provided Plaintiff with all of the records received from the SCDC. Defendants attached the affidavit of Kathy Hill, Director of Health Information Resources with the South Carolina Department of Corrections. As Director, Hill attests that she attached true and accurate copies of Plaintiff’s medical records under her ...


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.