Fuller v. Holt et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying 44 Motion to Stay; denying 44 Motion for Hearing; denying 56 Motion for Relief and Suggested Agenda for Pretrial Conference. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 11/14/2018. (A copy of this Order was sent via US mail to Napier Sandford Fuller, 2201 Lynnwood Drive, Wilmington, NC 28403.) (Collins, S.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
NO. 5:18-CV-00059-FL

NAPIER SANDFORD FULLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
REBECCA W. HOLT, in her official
capacity as employee of the North
Carolina Office of the Courts, RICHARD
A. BADDOUR, in his official capacity as
employee of the North Carolina
Administrative Office of the Courts,
JAMES C. STANDFORD, in his official
capacity as employee of the North
Carolina Administrative Office of the
Courts, JAMES T. BRYAN, III, in his
official capacity as employee of the North
Carolina Administrative Office of the
Courts, SAMANTHA HYATT CABE, in
her official capacity as employee of the
North Carolina Administrative Office of
the Courts, and CATHERINE C.
STEVENS, in her official capacity as
employee of the North Carolina
Administrative Office of the Courts,
Defendants.

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

ORDER

This matter is before on plaintiff’s request for pretrial conference, (DE 44), and his motion
for relief and suggested conference agenda. (DE 56). Conference previously was set and then
discontinued pursuant to text order entered September 13, 2018, with notice it would be rescheduled
as necessary.
As the case has evolved, the court deems conference unnecessary and dispenses with same.

Plaintiff indicates in these filings that he is considering dismissing this case. Plaintiff may seek to
do this of his own initiative. It does not appear conference with the court will aid in this decisionmaking nor would it settle matters concerning to plaintiff related to the subpoena process or
discovery concerning non-parties. Conference also is unlikely to result in admissions plaintiff seeks
from defendants. Regarding another area of concern for plaintiff, the court notes that the state trial
transcript is now available.

For these and other reasons, plaintiff’s conference request, (DE 44),

and attendant suggestions, (DE 56), are DENIED.
Plaintiff has an extensive travel schedule, where it appears he just returned or will return
soon from overseas and then will launch off again in the not too distant future. He seeks access to
the court’s CM/ECF system for filing. The court has researched plaintiff’s request to be permitted
entry into the court’s CM/ECF system directly with the clerk of court. The undersigned is reminded
that this district restricts electronic filing to registered attorneys who are required to take a processes
class in order to become registered users. The district does, however, allow pro se parties to receive
notices of electronic filings. If plaintiff is not now receiving electronic notices and wishes so to do,
he may contact the case manager to facilitate this. The court now has a physical presence in
Wilmington which should ameliorate plaintiff’s filing problems directly related to the closure of the
federal courthouse at Wilmington due to storm damage.
SO ORDERED, this the 14th day of November, 2018.

_____________________________
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge

2