Trent v. Roberts et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying 2 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 3 Motion to Find the Defendant's Crimes to be Aggravated in Nature; denying 4 Motion to Judge Plaintiff Action on Merits Alone; denying 5 Motion for Leave o f Court to Depose; denying 6 Motion for Leave of Court to Depose re: Ann Wall; denying 7 Motion for Leave of Court to Depose re: Cathy Moss; denying 14 Motion to Order the Defendants to Process Plaintiff's Next Financial Instrument; denying 15 Motion to Judge Plaintiff Action on Merits Alone. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 12/11/12. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(nll)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:12cv329

JERRY JUSTIN TRENT,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RICHARD B. ROBERTS,
THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
STEVE E. BROOKS, and
WAYNE E. JOHNSON,
Defendants.

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

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the following matters:
1.

The Plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1];

2.

The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 2];

3.

The Plaintiff’s Motion to Find the Defendants’ Crimes to be Aggravated
in Nature [Doc. 3];

4.

The Plaintiff’s Motion to Judge Plaintiff Action on Merits Alone [Doc. 4];

5.

The Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court to Depose [Doc. 5];

6.

The Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court to Depose [Doc. 6];

7.

The Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave of Court to Depose [Doc. 7];

8.

The Plaintiff’s Motion to Order the Defendants to Process Plaintiff’s Next

Financial Instrument [Doc. 14]; and
9.

The Plaintiff’s Motion to Judge Plaintiff Action on Merits Alone [Doc. 15].
The Plaintiff, who appears pro se, initiated this action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. §1983. [Doc. 1]. Although not entirely clear, it appears that the
litigation arises from an administrative garnishment of the Plaintiff’s wages by
the North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority in order to collect a
debt owed by the Plaintiff as the result of student loans. [Doc. 1-5 at 19-20,
22-24, 27-28, 37]; [Doc. 1-6 at 20]. The time within which the Defendants
must answer or otherwise appear has not yet expired. The Plaintiff, however,
has filed the motions referenced above but has failed to serve the Defendants
with copies of them, as is required. Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.
Each of the pending motions is premature and will be dismissed without
prejudice to renewal at the appropriate time. The Plaintiff is cautioned that
despite his pro se status, he is required to follow the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure as well as the local rules of this District.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that The Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
Judgment [Doc. 2], Motion to Find the Defendants’ Crimes to be Aggravated
in Nature [Doc. 3], Motion to Judge Plaintiff Action on Merits Alone [Doc. 4],
Motion for Leave of Court to Depose [Doc. 5], Motion for Leave of Court to

2

Depose [Doc. 6], Motion for Leave of Court to Depose [Doc. 7], Motion to
Order the Defendants to Process Plaintiff’s Next Financial Instrument [Doc.
14], and Motion to Judge Plaintiff Action on Merits Alone [Doc. 15] are hereby
DENIED as premature.
Signed: December 11, 2012

3