Hinton v. Henderson et al

Filing 63

ORDER denying 55 Motion ; denying 62 Motion for Declaratory Judgment. The Court directs Defendants to SHOW CAUSE in writing within 10 days of the entry of this Order whether they have conferred as provided by Rule 26(f) and conducted an Initial Attorney's Conference as ordered by the District Court in its September 28, 2011 Order. The Court directs Defendants to Show Cause in writing within 10 days of the entry of this Order why they have not filed the Certification of Initial Attorney's Conference as ordered by the District Court in its Sept. 28 2001 Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 1/9/12. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(chh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:10cv505
CHARLES EVERETTE HINTON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MICHAEL W. HENDERSON;
)
PETER S. GILCHRIST; TERESA
)
BROADWAY; and ANDREW
)
RUDGERS, Probation Officer,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

Previously, the District Court granted Defendant Henderson’s Motion for
Summary Judgment and dismissed the claims against Defendant Henderson. (Order,
Sept. 28, 2011.) In addition, the District Court ordered the parties to confer as
provided by Rule 26(f) and conduct an Initial Attorney’s Conference within fourteen
days of the entry of the Court’s Order granting summary judgment. (Id.) The District
Court also ordered the parties to file a Certification of Initial Attorney’s Conference
within twenty-one days of the entry of the Court’s Order granting summary judgment.
(Id.)
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se and is currently incarcerated, then submitted

-1-

a pleading with the Court setting out what appears to be a summary of the discovery
he intends to seek [# 55]. Plaintiff also requested an Order from the Court that he be
allowed to meet with the attorneys for the remaining Defendants in person. That same
day, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Interlocutory Appeal and appealed the District Court’s
Order granting summary judgment as to Defendant Henderson.
Several weeks later, Plaintiff moved for sanctions against the remaining
Defendants for failure to comply with the District Court’s Sept. 28, 2011, Order
[# 60].

Plaintiff contends that Defendants failed to hold the Initial Attorney’s

Conference as ordered by the District Court and failed to confer pursuant to Rule
26(f). Finally, Plaintiff moved the Court to immediately set this case for trial. [# 62].
Defendants did not respond to any of Plaintiff’s motions.

Upon a review of

Plaintiff’s pleadings and the record in this case, the Court DIRECTS the parties as
follows:
(1)

The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Order to
Meet with Attorneys [# 55].

(2)

The Court DIRECTS Defendants to SHOW CAUSE in writing within
ten (10) days of the entry of this Order whether they have conferred as
provided by Rule 26(f) and conducted an Initial Attorney’s Conference
as ordered by the District Court in its Sept. 28, 2011, Order.

-2-

(3)

The Court DIRECTS Defendants to SHOW CAUSE in writing within
ten (10) days of the entry of this Order why they have not filed the
Certification of Initial Attorney’s Conference as ordered by the District
Court in its Sept. 28, 2011, Order.

(4)

The Court DENIES without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Declaratory
Judgment [# 62]. After the close of discovery and the dispositive motion
deadline, the Court will set this case for trial if any claims against
Defendants remain. Plaintiff, however, is not entitled to an immediate
trial setting at this time.

Signed: January 9, 2012

-3-