Opinion
Civil Action No. 6:09-153-HFF-WMC.
June 15, 2009
ORDER
This matter is before the court on the plaintiff's motion to change venue (doc. 28) and discovery motions (docs. 39, 47, 49). The plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983.
Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1)(B), and Local Rule 73.02(B)(2)(d), D.S.C., this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters in cases filed under Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983.
The plaintiff filed this action against a number of employees of the South Carolina Department of Corrections ("SCDC"), alleging, inter alia, denial of access to the courts. The plaintiff served discovery requests dated April 27, 2009, on defense counsel by mail. The defendants responded with their objections on April 30, 2009. The plaintiff filed the first discovery motion (doc. 39) on May 11, 2009. The defendants argue that the plaintiff is not entitled to the documents he seeks. This court agrees. The defendants produced the plaintiff's relevant medical records, but they objected to searching for "write ups, reprimands . . . and all lawsuits pending or those that have been filed against the defendants. . . ." Clearly such documents are not relevant to the plaintiff's case.
As argued by the defendants, the motion for discovery filed on June 4, 2009 (doc. 47), is untimely as any motion to compel discovery must be filed within 20 days after receipt of the discovery response to which the motion to compel is directed. Local Civil Rule 37.01 DSC. The motion to produce filed on June 4, 2009 (doc. 49), appears to actually be discovery requests, which should not be filed with the court. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(d)(1).
In his motion for change of venue (doc. 28), the plaintiff argues that his case should be "moved out of the district court in Greenville, S.C." because he has filed judicial complaints against the Honorable Henry F. Floyd, United States District Judge, as well as the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. The motion is without merit.
Based upon the foregoing, the plaintiff's motions (docs. 28, 39, 47, 49) are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.