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.

Ridley v. Magill

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

July 27, 2016

Richard David Ridley, Plaintiff,
v.
John Magill, Director DMH; Holly Scaturo, Director SVPTP, Kimberly Poholchuk, Program Coordinator, Warden Stevenson, Defendants.

          Richard David Ridley, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

          Mr John McGill, Defendant, represented by Charles Albert Kinney, Jr., McKay Cauthen Settana and Stubley & Daniel R. Settana, Jr., McKay Cauthen Settana and Stubley.

          Warden Stevenson, Defendant, represented by Charles Albert Kinney, Jr., McKay Cauthen Settana and Stubley & Daniel R. Settana, Jr., McKay Cauthen Settana and Stubley.

          Mrs Holly Scaturo, Defendant, represented by Charles Albert Kinney, Jr., McKay Cauthen Settana and Stubley & Daniel R. Settana, Jr., McKay Cauthen Settana and Stubley.

          Mrs Kimberly Poholchuk, Defendant, represented by Charles Albert Kinney, Jr., McKay Cauthen Settana and Stubley & Daniel R. Settana, Jr., McKay Cauthen Settana and Stubley.

          ORDER

          SHIVA V. HODGES, Magistrate Judge.

         Richard David Ridley ("Plaintiff"), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, is committed to the custody of the Sexually Violent Predator Treatment Program ("SVPTP") of the South Carolina Department of Mental Health ("SCDMH") pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act, S.C. Code Ann. § 44-48-10 through § 44-48-170 ("SVPA"). He brings this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of his constitutional rights by SCDMH Director John Magill, SVPTP Director Holly Scaturo, SVPTP Deputy Director Kimberly Poholchuk, and Broad River Correctional Institution ("BRCI") (collectively "Defendants").[1]

         This matter comes before the court on the following motions by Plaintiff: (1) motion to move motions to the hearing docket [ECF No. 45]; (2) motion to strike affidavit [ECF No. 46]; (3) motion for default judgment [ECF No. 55]; (4) motion to expedite [ECF No. 63]; and (5) motion to amend the complaint [ECF No. 65]. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d) (D.S.C.), this matter has been assigned to the undersigned for all pretrial proceedings. Having carefully considered the parties' submissions and the record in this case, the undersigned denies Plaintiff's motions.

         I. Motion to move motions to hearing docket [ECF No. 45]

         Plaintiff's motion requests that the court rule on many of his filings. However, many of the documents Plaintiff claims are motions are filings to which Plaintiff is not entitled to a ruling. Additionally, despite having received a substantial number of filings from Plaintiff, the undersigned notes that the court does not appear to have received all of the documents Plaintiff referenced. However, it does not appear that any of the motions would affect the issues in this case. For instance, Plaintiff alleges he filed a motion to have the U.S. Marshal serve a subpoena on October 12, 2015 [ECF No. 45], but the deadline for discovery expired on August 11, 2015 [ECF No. 19].

         Regardless, there is no specific motion docket in this court, and the court handles all motions in due course. Plaintiff's motion to move motions to the motion docket is denied.

         II. Motion to strike [ECF No. 46]

         Plaintiff moves to strike the affidavit of Dr. Gothard [ECF No. 44-5], which Defendants attached to their reply brief in support of summary judgment. Dr. Gothard's affidavit was submitted to show why SVPTP residents are prohibited from possessing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition. Although Plaintiff claims he must use the manual to show that he was misdiagnosed, but he is provided counsel ...


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.