Oliver v. Zimmer, Inc. et al

Filing 44

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) Given Plaintiff's position as a pro se litigant, and the formal language used by the Court in its Order setting the August 21st hearing, the Court will provide Plaintiff with another opportunity to appea r and make argument in support of his Motion to Appoint Counsel. Therefore, the Court's previous ruling from the August 21st hearing, denying the Motion to Appoint Counsel and ordering Plaintiff to file a Response showing cause as to "why [D]efendants' motion to dismiss should not be granted," is vacated [See ECF No. 43 ]. The new hearing for argument on Plaintiffs Motion to Appoint Counsel will be held on Thursday, September 17, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., at the Thomas F. Eagle ton Courthouse, 111 South 10th Street, St. Louis, MO 63102, in Courtroom 17 South. Plaintiff is ordered to appear at that time and place to argue in support of his Motion to Appoint Counsel. To avoid any additional travel costs, counsel for Defendants may appear by telephone. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 8/28/2015. (CBL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
WILLIAM OLIVER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ZIMMER, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.

4:13CV01478 ERW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On August 21, 2015, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel.
Plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing, and the Court denied the motion. Subsequently, the
Court received a communication from Plaintiff in which he explained he had failed to understand
the Court’s Order setting the August 21st hearing, and had not believed his attendance was
required.
Given Plaintiff’s position as a pro se litigant, and the formal language used by the Court
in its Order setting the August 21st hearing, the Court will provide Plaintiff with another
opportunity to appear and make argument in support of his Motion to Appoint Counsel.
Therefore, the Court’s previous ruling from the August 21st hearing, denying the Motion to
Appoint Counsel and ordering Plaintiff to file a Response showing cause as to “why
[D]efendants’ motion to dismiss should not be granted,” is vacated [See ECF No. 43].
The new hearing for argument on Plaintiff’s Motion to Appoint Counsel will be held on
Thursday, September 17, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., at the Thomas F. Eagleton Courthouse, 111 South
10th Street, St. Louis, MO 63102, in Courtroom 17 South. Plaintiff is ordered to appear at that
time and place to argue in support of his Motion to Appoint Counsel. To avoid any additional

travel costs, counsel for Defendants may appear by telephone.
It is so Ordered.
Dated this 28th Day of August, 2015.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-