Hill v. Dobey et al
Filing
33
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION recommending 17 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Curtis R Hill, 21 MOTION for Entry of Default filed by Curtis R Hill, and 31 MOTION for Entry of Default filed by Curtis R Hill be denied. Objections to R&R due by 4/10/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge William M Catoe on 3/24/09. (Attachments: # 1 Objection notice)(ladd, )
<![CDATA[
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION Curtis Rena Hill, #296024, a/k/a Curtis R. Hill, Plaintiff, vs. Adell Dobey, Polly Hall, and Marcus Smith, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Civil Action No. 6:08-4080-HMH-WMC REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This matter is before the court on the plaintiff's motions for judgment on the pleadings (doc. 17) and for entry of default (docs. 21 and 31). The plaintiff, a state prisoner who is proceeding pro se, brought this action seeking 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, and submit findings and recommendations to the District Court. In his complaint, the plaintiff alleges deliberate indifference to a serious medical need after he slipped and fell on a wet floor at Edgefield County Detention Center on September 29, 2008, causing injuries including a sprained ankle. On February 5, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, basically arguing that his complaint is correct and the defendants' answer is incorrect. Clearly this motion is without merit and should be denied. On February 26, 2009, the plaintiff filed a motion for entry of default, arguing that he is entitled to entry of default
because the defendants did not timely respond to his motion for judgment on the pleadings. As argued by the defendants, their failure to respond to the motion for judgment on the pleadings, which they felt was so lacking in merit that a response was unnecessary, does not entitle the plaintiff to entry of default. The defendants timely filed an answer to the plaintiff's complaint (see doc. 15). On March 18, 2009, the plaintiff filed a second motion for entry of default, claiming that the defendants had been granted an extension of time through March 16, 2009, to respond to his motions, but had failed to do so. To the contrary, the defendants filed their opposition to the plaintiff's motion on March 16th (see doc. 28). Based upon the foregoing, the plaintiff's motions for judgment on the pleadings (doc. 17) and entry of default (docs. 21 and 31) should be denied.
s/W illiam M. Catoe United States Magistrate Judge March 24, 2009 Greenville, South Carolina
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
