PIERCE v. PIERCE
Filing
9
ORDER OF REMAND signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN JR. on 1/14/2014 adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation 6 ; that this action is REMANDED to the District Court of Guilford County. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a certified copy of this Order to the Guilford County District Court Clerk. FURTHER that Defendant's Motion for Entry of Default (Doc. 4 ) and Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 5 ) are DENIED. (Sheets, Jamie)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
PATRICIA A. PIERCE,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
TORNELLO F. PIERCE,
Defendant.
1:12CV743
ORDER OF REMAND
On October 28, 2013, the United States Magistrate Judge’s
Memorandum Opinion and Recommendation was filed and notice was
served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
7.)
(Docs. 6 and
No objections were filed within the time limits prescribed
by Section 636.
However, on December 31, 2013, the Defendant in
this action, Tornello F. Pierce, filed a document (Doc. 8)
entitled “Notice of Appeal.”
In that filing, Defendant states
that notice is given of “appeal to the United States Court
Appeals” from the recommendation entered on October 28, 2013.
Because a recommendation is not a final order or judgment, this
court will construe the filing as an objection to the Magistrate
Judge’s Recommendation.
This court has made a de novo review of
the recommendation and finds that it should be adopted.
The
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation is hereby adopted.
Although Defendant is proceeding pro se, Defendant Tornello
Pierce’s objection contains language that is completely
inappropriate for a pleading in this court.
Defendant is surely
entitled to disagree with and dispute an adverse ruling by any
court.
However, as most aptly stated by another court in this
district, “What unfortunately may pass as debate in public
discourse is not acceptable in a court of law . . . criticisms
of adverse rulings, especially in court filings [must be]
articulated in a professional manner and [must not] devolve into
opprobrious, personal attacks.”
(See Hancock v. Astrue,
1:09CV87, Order (Doc. 33) (M.D.N.C. 7/9/2012.)
Defendant Tornello F. Pierce El-Bey is cautioned, in any
future filings, whether this case or any other, to direct his
arguments to the merits without impugning the integrity of the
effort or reputation of the Magistrate Judges, or such filings
will be struck.
See Theriault v. Silber, 579 F.2d 302, 303 (5th
Cir. 1978) (dismissing pro se appeal for inappropriate invective
and noting “the time honored notion that the law and the courts
of the United States are important parts of American society
worthy of respect”).
- 2 -
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the
District Court of Guilford County.
The Clerk of Court is
directed to send a certified copy of this Order to the Guilford
County District Court Clerk.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Entry of
Default (Doc. 4) and Motion for Default Judgment (Doc. 5) are
DENIED.
This the 14th day of January, 2014.
_______________________________________
United States District Judge
- 3 -
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?