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.

Clark v. Stirling

United States District Court, D. South Carolina

February 1, 2019

Shawn Anthony Clark, Plaintiff,
v.
Bryan Stirling; Warden Joyner; Warden Tisdale; Warden Sharpe; Major Ray; Officer Beck; Officer Jane Joe; Jane Doe; Night Shift Captains; Captain Rogers; Joseph Stines; Mike McCall; S. Patterson, Defendants.

          ORDER

          PAIGE J. GOSSETT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         This is a civil action filed by a self-represented state prisoner. Under Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), pretrial proceedings in this action have been referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge.

         By order dated October 16, 2018, the court authorized service of process against the defendants. (ECF No. 18.) However, the summons for Defendant Officer Beck was returned unexecuted because the Form USM-285 was deficient. (ECF No. 24.) A copy of the deficient Form USM-285 is attached to this order. The form indicates service could not be accepted by the SCDC Office of General Counsel because it could not locate the defendant.

         Plaintiff is reminded that he must provide, and is responsible for, information sufficient to identify the defendant on the Form USM-285. The United States Marshal cannot serve an inadequately identified defendant. Rule 4(m) provides that, unless a defendant is served within ninety (90) days after the complaint is filed, the court must dismiss an action without prejudice as to that defendant. See Mendez v. Elliot, 45 F.3d 75, 78S80 (4th Cir. 1995) (collecting cases).

         If Plaintiff seeks to effect service of process on Officer Beck, Plaintiff must move for an extension of time to effect service, and provide the court with a Form USM-285 that is not deficient. These documents must be mailed to: Clerk of Court, 901 Richland Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201.

         TO THE CLERK OF COURT:

         The Office of the Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Plaintiff, as well as a copy of the unexecuted Form USM-285 for Defendant Officer Beck. (ECF No. 24.)

         IT IS SO ORDERED.

         IMPORTANT INFORMATION . . . PLEASE READ CAREFULLY

         WARNING TO PRO SE PARTY OR NONPARTY FILERS

         ALL DOCUMENTS THAT YOU FILE WITH THE COURT WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON THE INTERNET THROUGH PACER (PUBLIC ACCESS TO COURT ELECTRONIC RECORDS) AND THE COURT'S ELECTRONIC CASE FILING SYSTEM. CERTAIN PERSONAL IDENTIFYING INFORMATION SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN, OR SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM, ALL DOCUMENTS BEFORE YOU SUBMIT THE DOCUMENTS TO THE COURT FOR FILING.

         Rule 5.2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for privacy protection of electronic or paper filings made with the court. Rule 5.2 applies to ALL documents submitted for filing, including pleadings, exhibits to pleadings, discovery responses, and any other document submitted by any party or nonparty for filing. Unless otherwise ordered by the court, a party or nonparty filer should not put certain types of an individual's personal identifying information in documents submitted for filing to any United States District Court. If it is necessary to file a document that already contains personal identifying information, the personal identifying information should be “blacked out” or redacted prior to submitting the document to the Clerk of Court for filing. A person filing any document containing their own personal identifying information waives the protection of Rule 5.2(a) by filing the information without redaction and not under seal.

         1. Personal information protected by Rule 5.2(a):

         (a) Social Security and Taxpayer ...


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.