Sawyer v. Matthews, et al

Filing 75

ORDER denying 74] Motion to Appoint Counsel; denying 74 Motion For Assistance in Referring Case for Criminal Prosecution; denying 74 Motion for Extension of Time. The parties are reminded to read the order in its entirety for critical deadlines and information. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 8/9/2017. (Collins, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:15-CV-514-FL

DONNELL SAWYER,
Plaintiff,
v.
DAVID P. MATTHEWS; JULIE
RHOADES; WILLIAM N. RILEY;
JAMIE R. KENDALL; PRICE
WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY, LLC an
Indiana limited liability company; and
LIZZY SANTIAGO,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This matter is before the court upon correspondence received from plaintiff requesting
various forms of relief. The court received one original and one copy of the correspondence, with
each containing different handwritten marks. The court DIRECTS the clerk to file the first page of
the original correspondence as a motion to appoint counsel, motion for assistance in referring the
case for criminal prosecution, and motion for extension of time. Enclosed with the first page of the
correspondence are three letters from a medical provider addressed “to whom it may concern,”
describing plaintiff’s medical condition and opining as to plaintiff’s ability to represent himself in
litigation. Due to the confidential medical nature of the attachments, the clerk is DIRECTED to file
such attachments under seal. The clerk is DIRECTED to file the copy of the correspondence as a
further exhibit and sealed exhibit thereto.
With respect to the substance of the instant motions, the court DENIES the motion to refer
the case for criminal prosecution, where this court lacks jurisdiction to refer matters brought by a

private citizen for criminal prosecution. The court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for extension of time,
where the court’s case management order entered July 24, 2017, sets forth the deadlines and
procedural requirements governing this case, and plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for
altering such deadlines and requirements.
Finally, the court DENIES plaintiff’s motion for appointment of counsel, for the reasons
previously given in order entered December 28, 2016. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to proceed with this
matter in accordance with the court’s case management order. In the event plaintiff is unable or
unwilling to pursue this case as set forth in the court’s case management order, the case may be
dismissed by plaintiff voluntarily or by the court for failure to prosecute.
SO ORDERED, this the 9th day of August, 2017.
_____________________________
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge

2